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 0F 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bear Island Paper Company LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Peter M. Brant, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in this Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Peter M. BrantPeter M. BrantChief Executive OfficerAugust 5, 2004




This certification accompanies
the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2015294EN.01007801.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/78

---

Action brought on 29 June 2015 — Bach Flower Remedies v OHIM — Durapharma (RESCUE)

(Case T-337/15)

(2015/C 294/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bach Flower Remedies Ltd (Wimbledon, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Durapharma ApS (Stenstrup, Denmark)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘RESCUE’ — Community trade mark registration No 6 473 755

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2015 in Case R 2551/2013-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Before the Third Division,

June 23, 1944

No. 49552.

#### Petition 5852-R of Davidson & Strauss (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the hearing the Government moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was filed prior to final appraisement. This motion was granted. The petition was therefore ordered dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John D. Hellmann, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. for the period ended July 2, 2005; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon such evaluation; 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 16, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2271 

In Re: US AIRWAYS, INCORPORATED,

Debtor.

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

PHILIP A. GARLAND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

US AIRWAYS, INCORPORATED; OFFICIAL COMMITTEE

OF UNSECURED CREDITORS Of US Airways, Inc., 

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:06-cv-00539-LMB; BK-04-13819-SSM)

Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 2, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip A. Garland, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Michael Foley,

MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; Sarah Beckett Boehm,

MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Philip A. Garland appeals the district court’s order

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying relief on his

employment discrimination claim against US Airways, Inc. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Garland v. US

Airways, Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00539-LMB (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                           9,802
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (756)
<INVENTORY>                                     15,701
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,218
<PP&E>                                          61,846
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,038
<BONDS>                                         17,879
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,537
<OTHER-SE>                                     (15,938)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,648
<SALES>                                         98,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,243
<CGS>                                           85,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    42
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    553
<INCOME-TAX>                                       217
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       336
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        


</TABLE>
No. 61719.

#### Carole Stupell *v.*United States,

protests 310960-K and 311030-K (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordauce with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# C_2016111EN.01002601.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/26

---

Action brought on 26 November 2015 — City Train v EUIPO (City Train)

(Case T-699/15)

(2016/C 111/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: City Train GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Adori, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘City Train’ — Application No 13 154 315

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2015 in Case R 843/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 9 September 2015 and order it to register the figurative trade mark ‘City Train’ indicating the colours ‘grey, light red’ which was applied for under application No 13 154 315 on 8 August 2014 as a European Union trade mark in respect of the goods and services in Classes 12, 37 and 42 referred to the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 9 September 2015 and order it to register the figurative trade mark ‘City Train’ indicating the colours ‘grey, light red’ which was applied for under application No 13 154 315 on 8 August 2014 as a European Union trade mark in respect of the goods and services in Classes 12, 37 and 42 referred to the application.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    The undersigned, Richard Jordan, the Chief Financial Officer of Wataire International, Inc. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.     The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2006 (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.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 19th day of January 2007.   By:  /s/ Richard Jordan -------------------------------- Richard Jordan, Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00488-CV

IN RE BOBBY JOE ROBERTS RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator 

sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his motion to 

modify order to withdraw funds. Because the trial court has ruled on Relator’s 

motion, this court is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, 

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: November 30, 2011

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
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 March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Christopher A. Milner, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James J.
Lillis, 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/ Christopher A. Milner
---------------------------------
Name: Christopher A. Milner
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:   May 10, 2005

/s/ James J. Lillis
---------------------------------
Name: James J. Lillis
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:   May 10, 2005

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

A signed original of this certification 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.
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

SOP No.: PDP-LABOP-12 Page 1 of 10

Title: Poultry Adipose, Liver, and Muscle Analysis

Revision: Original Replaces: N/A Effective: 04/01/00

1. Purpose:

To provide standard procedures for the receipt, preparation, storage, analysis, reporting, and
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

SOP No.: PDP-LABOP-12 Page 2 of 10

Title: Poultry Adipose, Liver, and Muscle Analysis

Revision: Original Replaces: N/A Effective: 04/01/00
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

SOP No.: PDP-LABOP-12 Page 3 of 10
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

SOP No.: PDP-LABOP-12 Page 4 of 10
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

SOP No.: PDP-LABOP-12 Page 5 of 10
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

SOP No.: PDP-LABOP-12 Page 6 of 10
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

SOP No.: PDP-LABOP-12 Page 7 of 10
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

SOP No.: PDP-LABOP-12 Page 8 of 10
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

SOP No.: PDP-LABOP-12 Page 9 of 10
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

SOP No.: PDP-LABOP-12 Page 10 of 10
# C_2015381EN.01005001.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/50

---

Action brought on 17 September 2015 — LLR-G5 v OHIM — Glycan Finance (SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5)

(Case T-539/15)

(2015/C 381/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LLR-G5 Ltd (Castlebar, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glycan Finance Corp. Ltd (Sheffield, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in colour containing the word elements ‘SILICIUM ORGANIQUE G5 LLR-G5’ — Community trade mark application No 10 424 703

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 in Case R 291/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of 27 November 2013 in case B 2 027 053, and to the extent that it granted the other party’s appeal against the same decision of the Opposition Division; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of 27 November 2013 in case B 2 027 053, and to the extent that it granted the other party’s appeal against the same decision of the Opposition Division;

| — | the opposition of the other party to the registration of the applicant’s community trade mark application No. 1 042 4703 is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

the opposition of the other party to the registration of the applicant’s community trade mark application No. 1 042 4703 is dismissed;

| — | order OHIM and the other party, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the other party, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 56299.

protest 173658-K (New York).

#### N. H. Nahigian, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the hearing the collector’s letter of transmittal was received in evidence, the facts as stated therein being conceded by Government counsel. From an examination of the collector’s letter, it appears that at the time of liquidation, the Iranian currency was converted into United States currency by using the equivalent of $0.058823; that following T. D. 51892, *377liquidation should have been based on an equivalent of $0.053475 for “First Category Goods”; and that the collector’s office would have no objection to a stipulation for a reliquidation based on said equivalent. On the record presented the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry, converting the currency of the invoice, Iranian rials, to United States dollars at the rate of $0.053475.
IPAC Operational Metrics for October 2017

Dollar Amount % of Total Dollar Amount Number of Transactions % of Total Number of Transactions

Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 15,808,812,647,126 99.49% 12,062 11.55%

Buy/Sell 74,532,006,406 0.47% 91,007 87.12%

Benefits (RITS) 5,991,542,695 0.04% 426 0.41%

Check Aftermath (TRACS) 80,202,669 0.00% 962 0.92%

Zero Dollar 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Grand Total - August 2017 15,889,416,398,896 100.00% 104,457 100.00%

Grand Total - July 2017 13,568,929,867,728 100.00% 148,462 100.00%

July to August Change 2,320,486,531,168 -44,005

Percentage Change 17.101% -29.641%

Grand Total - August 2016 15,613,455,881,800 97,752

August 2016 to August 2017 Change 275,960,517,096 6,705

Percentage Change 1.8% 6.9%

Volume by Transaction Type