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 Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 29, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Dmitry Beinus, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to  §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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/Dmitry BeinusChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                   November 23, 2007

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ARIEL OLIVENCIA, :

Plaintiff :

: 

: No.: 02-CV 4184

v. :

: 

DELTA DENTAL OF :

PENNSYLVANIA, :

Defendant :

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

AND NOW, the parties hereto, Ariel Olivencia, and Delta Dental of

Pennsylvania, hereby agree that the above-captioned action be dismissed with

prejudice and the Defendant be released from any and all liability, claims, or rights

of action arising from and contained in the Complaint in this action.

Date: 

Ariel Olivencia

Case 2:02-cv-04184-RBS Document 10 Filed 02/10/2003 Page 1 of 3
2

NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP

 

Dennis E. Boyle, Esquire

Supreme Court I.D. No. 49618

Jodi A. Beierschmitt, Esquire

Supreme Court I.D. No. 84727

200 N. 3rd Street, 18th Floor

P. O. Box 840

Harrisburg PA 17108-0840

Counsel For: Delta Dental of Pennsylvania

Date:

Case 2:02-cv-04184-RBS Document 10 Filed 02/10/2003 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ARIEL OLIVENCIA, :

Plaintiff :

: 

: No.: 02-CV 4184

v. :

: 

DELTA DENTAL OF :

PENNSYLVANIA, :

Defendant :

ORDER

AND NOW this day of , 2003, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that the above-captioned action be dismissed with prejudice.

BY THE COURT:

 

J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04184-RBS Document 10 Filed 02/10/2003 Page 3 of 3
# C_2016454EN.01002004.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-172/16) (1)

(2016/C 454/38)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

---
#### Mousseau *vs.*LaRoche’s Sons.

1. The decision in *Mousseau et al. vs. Dorsett,*rendered to-day, controls this case, except as to the ninth ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. Where the contract was either a joint contract of one and his co-tenants, or an individual contract of one of the co-tenants, if a joint contract it could not be apportioned, and the proportion of one be recovered of him and the others be discharged by the jury; if an individual contract it would have been error to charge that commissions claimed to have been contracted for and earned could not be recoverd from the individual contracting to pay them.

April 9, 1888.

Charge of the court. Contracts. Apportionment. Before Judge Harden. City court of Savannah. July term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

Denmark *&*Adams, for plaintiff in error.

R. R. Richards and J. R. Saussy, *eontra.*

*569Simmons, Justice.

This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs against Mousseau for commissions which they claim Mousseau owed them, for “ endeavoring to sell, offering for sale, corresponding for sale of and as agents for the sale of a tract of land in Chatham county, known as Dillontown, under agreement with Francis X. Mousseau, whereby plaintiffs were to be paid the usual commissions of two and a half per cent, on the amount for which said property should be sold; said property having been sold for $60,000.” The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and a motion was made for a new trial by the defendant, which was overruled, and he excepted.

The errors complained of in the motion for a new trial were, that the jury found contrary to the evidence and charges as given by the court to the jury, which are set out in the motion.

1. The reasons given in the decision just rendered by this court in the case of *Mousseau et al. vs.*Dorsett, for the refusal to grant a new trial in that case, apply with equal force to all the grounds of the motion for a new trial in this case, up to the 9th ground.

2. The 9th ground complains that the court refused to give in charge to the jury the following written request: “ Here Dr. Mousseau is sued alone, and is sued, not as an agent, but individually. I charge you, therefore, that you cannot find for the plaintiffs in this case the commissions which you may think they have earned, that this defendant is liable, if liable at all, for only his share to the extent of his individual interest. You cannot charge him with his wife’s portion, or with that of any other owner.”

We do not think that this is a sound proposition in law, and the court did not err in refusing to give it in charge. The contract, as shown by the evidence, was either a joint contract of Mousseau and his co-tenants, or it was an individual contract by Mousseau alone. If it was a joint *570contract, it could not be apportioned and Mousseau’s proportion recovered of him and the others discharged by the jury. If it was an individual contract bf Mousseau, then it is equally clear that the request was unsound and should not have been given by the court.

Judgment affirmed.
Other

478.91565
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 TenFold Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nancy M. Harvey, President and 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:



|/s/NANCY M. HARVEYNancy M. Harvey President and Chief Executive
OfficerAugust 14, 2002 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>
                                                                    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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bayou City Exploration, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Norman G. Haisler, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my 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/ Norman G. Haisler
-------------------------------------
Norman G. Haisler
Senior Vice President-Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
November 11, 2005
# C_2015279EN.01003901.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/39

---

Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)

(Case T-287/15)

(2015/C 279/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark in red and blue containing the word element ‘real’ — Community trade mark No 38 968

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 March 2015 in Case R 2285/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision in part;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 15, 51, 64, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 15, 51, 64, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 26, 2021

No. 04-20-00486-CR

Jemadari Chinua WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B19-346

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Appellant Jemadari Chinua Williams, proceeding pro se, filed his Appellant’s brief in 

February 2021. With leave of court, Williams filed a supplement to his insufficiency point of 

error in March. The State’s brief was filed April 20, 2021, and Williams’s reply brief is now due 

June 9, 2021. On May 21, 2021, this court received Williams’s motion for leave to supplement 

his appellant’s brief with an amended argument for his point of error alleging he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel. 

We grant the motion. We order Williams may amend his argument for point of error five 

that alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. The amended argument must be made in 

Williams’s reply brief due June 9, 2021. We further order the State may respond to the amended 

point of error in a supplemental response due thirty days after Williams’s reply brief is received. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

FILE COPY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of May, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
ii PAC
~S Berea nts

IPAC Operational Metrics for April 2020

Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount % of Total Dollar Amount} Number of Transactions| _% of Total Number of Transactions
Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 18,963,450,608,611 99.78% 16,691) 14.70%
Buy/Sell 34,986,754,454 0.18%) 95,726 84.31%
Benefits (RITS) 6,421,090,274 0.03%| 391) 0.34%
|Check Aftermath (TRACS) 124,930,813} 0.00% 727 0.64%|
Zero Dollar i) 0.00% 4 0.00%
Grand Total - April 2020 19,004,983,384,153 100.00% 113,536 100.00%6|
|Grand Total - March 2020 19,100,956,035,618) 100.00% 118,132) 100.00%
March to April Change -95,972,651,464| ~4,596]
Percentage Change 0.5%) -3.9%|

Grand Total - April 2019

9,404,903,290,232

April 2019 to April 2020 Change

9,600,080,093,921

Percentage Change

102.1%)

114,992

-1,456|

-1.3%
dilutedshare as compared to the same prior-year period. The increase in earnings was driven primarily bya decline in operating expenses during the current-year period. The decrease in expenses for thenine monthperiod ended June 30, 2008 was partially offset by a decrease in margins, defined as revenues lesscost of gas and related taxes, due primarily to a decline in consumption by temperature-sensitivecustomers.Earnings from other business operations were unchanged for the three months ended June 30, 2008 anddecreased $0.01 per diluted share for the nine months ended June 30, 2008 when compared to the sameprior-year periods due primarily to a decrease in merchandise sales and related merchandisingactivities.The Board of Directors of EnergySouth, Inc., at a meeting held July 25, 2008, declared a quarterlydividend on the outstanding Common Stock of $0.26 per share, to be paid October 1, 2008 to holdersof record as of September 15, 2008.EnergySouth, Inc. is a holding company which has two principal wholly-owned subsidiaries, MobileGas Service Corporation and EnergySouth Midstream, Inc. The Company’s natural gas distributionbusiness is conducted by Mobile Gas, which purchases, sells, and transports natural gas toresidential, commercial, and industrial customers in Mobile, Alabama and surrounding areas. MobileGas also provides merchandise sales, service, and financing. The Company’s natural gas midstreamoperations are conducted by EnergySouth Midstream, which is the general partner and 90.9% owner ofBay Gas Storage Company, a limited partnership that provides underground storage and delivery ofnatural gas. EnergySouth Midstream also owns 60% of Mississippi Hub, LLC, a limited liabilitycompany engaged in the construction and development of natural gas storage caverns. EnergySouthServices, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of EnergySouth Midstream engaged in natural gasmarketing, trading and risk management activities, and is the general partner and 51% owner ofSouthern Gas Transmission Company, which is engaged in the intrastate transportation of naturalgas.
 

 
**ENERGYSOUTH, INC.**
IPAC Operational Metrics for January 2022

‘Volume by Transaction Type
Dollar Amount} % of Total Dollar Amount! Number of Transactions| _% of Total Number of Transactions|
Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 22,597,046 ,286,701| '99.80%| 20,453; 17.65%]
Buy/Sell 36,820,854 467] 0.16%| 94,421) 81.33%
Benefits (RITS) 9,097,481, 352 0.04%) 373) 0.32%}
|Check Aftermath (TRACS) 302,735,668] 0.0056] 815) 0.70%}
|Zero Dollar 9 0.0056] 1 0.0036}
|Grand Total - January 2022 22,643,267,358,188| 100.00%| 116,103) 100.00% |
|Grand Total - December 2021 18,138,417,459,070| 100.00%| 114,491) 100.00% |
[December to January Change 4,504,849,899,119|
—-—- 24.8% po]
[Grand Total - January 2021, 16,286,914,632,529| jo «106, 572
jan 2021 to Jan 2022 Change 6,356,352,725,660) [9.533
ee 39.0% [8 9
Before the First Division,

May 15, 1957

No. 60743.

#### M. Schwartz & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 278054-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by Wilson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION 

:

 v. :

:

CALVIN GOODRICH : NO. 03-487-11

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12th day of April, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant Calvin

Goodrich’s “Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” (Docket No. 651), and

all documents filed in connection therewith, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying

Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John R. Padova, J. 

______________________

John R. Padova, J.

Case 2:03-cr-00487-JP Document 670 Filed 04/12/12 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Dmitry Beinus, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. for the period ended September 29, 2007;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact 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 included in 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 ensure that 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 controls and 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 internal control 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 most recent 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 or operation 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 other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  November 23, 2007

/s/ DMITRY BEINUS	 Dmitry Beinus
   Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

---
# FIDS - GT&C

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#_x000D_&"Calibri"&11&K000000		

# Version

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#_x000D_&"Calibri"&11&K000000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                       377
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,688
<PP&E>                                         158,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,676
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,906
<BONDS>                                        106,813
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,197)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,676
<SALES>                                         23,945
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,590
<CGS>                                           10,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,630)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,900)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,730)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,730)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID DRENTLAW :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4142

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04142-PBT Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM R. PERKINS, : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, :

:

v. :

:

FRANK D. GILLIS, et al., : No. 04-1697

Respondents. 

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2007, upon careful and independent

consideration of the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and after review of the Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Peter B. Scuderi (Docket No. 24),

Petitioner’s Objections (Docket No. 25), and Respondents’ Response (Docket No. 26), it is

ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 24) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED. 

2. The petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice.

3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case closed for statistical purposes. 

BY THE COURT

S/Gene E.K. Pratter

GENE E.K. PRATTER

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01697-GEKP Document 28 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32(ii)

                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 on Form 10-QSB of Dialog Group,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  for the  quarter  ended June 30,  2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  Vincent  DeCrescenzo,  Sr.,  the Chief  Financial  Officer  of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, 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.

Dated: November 10, 2006

                                            /s/ Vincent DeCrescenzo Sr.
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Vincent DeCrescenzo, Sr. CFO