alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Anthracite Capital, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Hugh R.
Frater, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard M. Shea, as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of 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 operations of the
Company.


/s/ Hugh R. Frater
----------------------------------
Name:   Hugh R. Frater
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Date:   November 14, 2003

/s/ Richard M. Shea
----------------------------------
Name:   Richard M. Shea
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Date:   November 14, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and should not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss. 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2022272EN.01005201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 272/52 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/389 of 8 March 2022 laying down implementing technical standards for the application of Directive (EU) 2019/2034 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the format, structure, content lists and annual publication date of the information to be disclosed by competent authorities

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 79 of 9 March 2022](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2022_079_R_TOC)
)

On page 19, Annex IV, Part 1 (‘Individual data per competent authority’), in the second column ‘Reference to reporting template’:

in row 090:

for:

‘I 02.00 row 0030’,

read:

‘I 02.01 row 0030’;

in row 100:

for:

‘I 02.00 row 0020’,

read:

‘I 02.01 row 0020’;

in row 110:

for:

‘I 02.00 row 0040’,

read:

‘I 02.01 row 0040’.

On page 20, Annex IV, Part 2 (‘Data on market risk’), in footnote (1):

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(1) | The template shall include information on all investment firms and not only on those with positions related to K-’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(1) | The template shall include information on all investment firms and not only on those with positions related to K-factor net position risk.’. |

On pages 20 and 21, Annex IV, Part 2 (‘Data on market risk’), in the third column ‘Reference to reporting template’:

in row 020:

for:

‘IF 04.00 row 0100’,

read:

‘I 04.00 row 0100’;

in row 070:

for:

‘IF 04.00 row 0110’,

read:

‘I 04.00 row 0110’;

in row 100:

for:

‘IF 04.00 row 0100’,

read:

‘I 04.00 row 0100’;

in row 150:

for:

‘IF 04.00 row 0110’,

read:

‘I 04.00 row 0110’.

On page 21, Annex IV, Part 2 (‘Data on market risk’), the template, first column ‘risk to market data’, in the third subcolumn:

for:

‘Total own funds requirements under each approach (1)’,

read:

‘Total own funds requirements under each approach’.

On page 21, Annex IV, Part 2 (‘Data on market risk’), the template, in the second column ‘Approach’, in row 130:

for:

‘of which the alternative internal model approach (2)’,

read:

‘of which the alternative internal model approach’.

On page 21, Annex IV, Part 2 (‘Data on market risk’), the template, in note (3):

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(3) | Own funds requirements as referred to in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033.’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(3) | Own funds requirements as referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2019/2033.’. |

On pages 24 and 25, Part 4 (‘Data on exemptions’), the fourth column (‘Art. 9’) is deleted.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          20,262
<SECURITIES>                                    20,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,045
<INVENTORY>                                      7,682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,346
<PP&E>                                          25,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,261
<BONDS>                                          2,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           132
<OTHER-SE>                                     149,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,562
<SALES>                                        105,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,639
<CGS>                                           38,338
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,733
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,833
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 148
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,512
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,024
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,488
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,488
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99


</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 19, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00702-CV

WILLIAMS H. SMITH, JR., Appellant

V.

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. AND DISABILITY 

INSURANCE SPECIALIST, LLC, AS AGENT AND EMPLOYEE OF 

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellees

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-36144

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed February 18, 2013. A 

motion for new trial was timely filed. Appellant=s notice of appeal was filed 

August 2, 2013. 

When appellant has filed a timely motion for new trial, motion to modify the 

judgment, motion to reinstate, or request for findings of fact and conclusion of law, 

the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the date the judgment is 
2

signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed 

timely. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, 

acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1, 

but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion 

for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18 (1997) 

(construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant=s notice of appeal was not filed 

within the fifteen-day period provided by Rule 26.3.

On August 22, 2013, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s response urges that this 

Court does not have jurisdiction because the trial court's summary judgment order 

is an interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 

2001). Because the trial court's intent to adjudicate all claims and parties appears 

on the face of the order, we disagree that the order appealed from is interlocutory. 

Id. (holding that "[a]n express adjudication of all parties and claims in a case is not 

interlocutory merely because the record does not afford a legal basis for the 

adjudication"). 

Appellant's response otherwise fails to demonstrate that the notice of appeal 

in this cause was timely filed or filed within the applicable grace period. 

Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Boyce, McCally and Busby.
IA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 73

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 27, 1999

Mr. YOUNG of Florida introduced the following joint resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2000, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 106–62 is further amended by striking

4 ‘‘October 29, 1999’’ in section 106(c) and inserting in lieu

5 thereof ‘‘November 5, 1999’’, and by striking

6 ‘‘$189,524,382’’ in section 119 and inserting in lieu there7 of ‘‘$288,903,248’’. Public Law 106–46 is amended by

8 striking ‘‘November 1, 1999’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

9 ‘‘November 5, 1999’’.

Æ
Case Wo. 7,766.

#### KILLINGLY v. TAYLOR.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 99.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1802.

Interest — Balance of Account — Discretion of Jury — General Usage.

The jury may, or may not allow interest upon the balance of an account.

1

 [Reported by Hon. "William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

instructed the jury that if they were satisfied that the balance of the account was due as-stated they might allow interest or not as they should judge proper, considering what was the general usage on that subject.
### NUMBER 13 - 18 - 00521 - C R COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE SHANE MATTHEW BUCHEL
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Memora ndum Opinion by Justice Longoria 1 Shane Matthew Buchel , proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause 2 through which he contends that the trial court erred by failing to

“ consolidate restitution

. ” Buchel argues that the trial court incorrectly allowed the collection of restitution for multiple cases according to each individual judgment and its corresponding order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account cases , even though

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 Th is original proceeding arise s from trial court cause number 15

- 11

- 12 , 326 A in the 24th District Court of DeWitt County, Texas

. The respondent in th is original proceeding is the Honorable Kemper Stephen Williams. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.2.2 the restitution was ordered in connection with concurrent sentences. Th is Court request ed and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the State of Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney for DeWitt County, Texas

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a),(b). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opini on in In re Shane Matthew Buchel , No. 13

- 18

- 00509

- CR, 2018 WL ___, at *_ (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Dec. 6 , 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) , available at http: //www.search.txcourts .gov/case.aspx?cn=13

- 18

- 00509

- CR &coa=coa13

. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52.8(d). We likewise deny Buchel’s motion for nihil dicit judgment. NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). D elivered and filed the 6th day of December, 2018.
H. J. Res. 71

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(c)

of Public Law 106–62 is amended by striking ‘‘October 21, 1999’’

and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘October 29, 1999’’. Notwithstanding

section 106 of Public Law 106–62, funds shall be available and

obligations for mandatory payments due on or about November

1, 1999, may continue to be made.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
##### 



Exhibit 99.3
 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Compliance
 
 Report of
Management on Compliance Report of Management on Compliance




---



##### 



Report of Management on Compliance
  /s/ Ellen Z. Lamale




---



##### 



Exhibit A
Specified Standards
 I. Funding Agreement Payments
  1.
    
    calculated according to the terms of the Funding Agreement; and
 2.
    
    promptly paid, within two business days of the due date, to the Indenture
Trustee at the direction of the appropriate Principal Life Income Fundings Trust.
 II. Guarantee Payments in Support of the Payment of Amounts Due on the Funding Agreement
  1.
    
    calculated according to the terms of the Funding Agreement; and
 2.
    
    promptly paid, within two business days of the due date, to the Indenture
Trustee at the direction of the appropriate Principal Life Income Fundings Trust.
 III. Payments Under Indenture
EXHIBIT 32.2








Certification
by the Chief Financial Officer


of


Boardwalk
GP, LLC


pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the
undersigned chief financial officer of Boardwalk GP, LLC hereby certifies, to
such officer's knowledge, that the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007, (the "Report") of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (the
"Partnership") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Partnership.





February
26, 2008


/s/  Jamie
L.
Buskill


Jamie L.
Buskill


Senior
Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


(principal
financial officer)
No. 50290.

#### Protests 57605-K, etc., of Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of.counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewitbjt .was held that the currency of the *214invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon ' on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
**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 Majestic Oil & Gas Inc. (the "Company")
        on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Patrick
        Montalban, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
        certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.
  Patrick
        Montalban
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 Chief
        Financial Officer
  April
        8,
        2008
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Majestic Oil & Gas, Inc. and will be retained by Majestic Oil & Gas,
        Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon
        request.
# L_2022300EN.01000301.xml

| 21.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 300/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 300/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/2265

of 14 November 2022

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Κατσικάκι Λήμνου / Katsikaki Limnou’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1 – Fresh meat (and offal), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 14 November 2022.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

(2)  
  OJ C 281, 22.7.2022, p. 12.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
* 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

June 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20085

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERIC DANIEL MORALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-178-ALL

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Daniel Morales, former federal prisoner # 10876-179,

appeals from the 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his

supervised release. 

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its

own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

Cir. 1987). Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits federal

court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. See

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-or-controversy
No. 05-20085

-2-

requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury

other than the now-ended incarceration or parole -- some

‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction -- must exist if the

suit is to be maintained.” Id.

Morales has served the sentence that was imposed upon the

revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking

Morales’s term of supervised release imposed no further term of

supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy

for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.