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 IQ Biometrix, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
Scigliano, 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ William Scigliano
-----------------------------
William Scigliano
Chief Executive Officer

November 15, 2004


                                       26
Certification of the Chief Financial 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 20-F amended filing of Aquasol Envirotech, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Yenyou (Jeff) Zheng, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 12(g) 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/ Yenyou (Jeff) Zheng

Chief Financial Officer

Date:  June 21, 2006
# C_2018161EN.01004801.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — HJ v EMA

(Case T-579/16) (1)

1

((Civil service - Temporary staff - Refusal to renew a fixed-term contract - First paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as an indefinite contract - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Duty to state reasons - Right to be heard - Appraisal report - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 161/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: HJ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: F. Cooney and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the applicants appraisal report relating to the period from 16 February 2014 to 31 December 2014, of the EMA’s decision dated 1 April 2015 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and of the two decisions dated 26 October 2015 rejecting the complaints brought by the applicant against those measures and, secondly, an application for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders HJ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders HJ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-8/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-41037 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. EZEQUIEL GONZALEZ, Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-84-1

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Following his guilty plea, Ezequiel Gonzalez was convicted for conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 8 4 6

. He was sentenced, inter alia , to 97 months’ imprisonment, the low end o f the advisory Guidelines sentencing range. G o n zalez contends his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to timely debrief a Government agent prior to sentencing. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June5, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-41037 Document: 00511876453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2012No. 11-41037

“[T]he general rule in this circuit is that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be r e s o lv e d o n direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record

on the merits of the allegations”. United States v. Gulley , 526 F.3d 809, 821 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Supreme C o u rt h as stated, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Massaro v. United States , 538 U.S. 500, 504-05 (2 0 0 3 )

. “Th ere may be cases in which trial counsel’s ineffectiveness is so apparent from the r e c o rd that appellate counsel will consider it advisable to raise the issue on direct appeal.” Id. at 508. Accordingly, ou r c o u rt generally resolves an ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal only where the record is sufficient to consider the claim’s merits. Gulley , 526 F.3d at 821. The record is not sufficient to allow us to consider whethe r c o u nsel’s failure to pursue additional debriefing or to seek a continuance of the sentencing proceedings constituted in e f f e ctive assistance. Because we conclude that “we cannot fairly evaluate the claim from the record”, we d e c l i n e t o consider Gonzalez’ ineffective-assistance claim on appeal, without prejudice, of course, to his right to raise this claim in a timely § 2255 proceeding. Id

. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-41037 Document: 00511876453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2012
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT 11


                          Flagstar Capital Corporation
                      Computation of Net Earnings per Share
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


In order to calculate net earnings per share of common stock, the Company must
first subtract the dividend requirements of the Series A Preferred Shares to
arrive at net earnings available to the common stockholders. Net earnings per
share is calculated by dividing net earnings available to common stockholders by
the average number of common shares outstanding during the period.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                      For the             For the            For the             For the
                                                      quarter             quarter          nine months         nine months
                                                       ended               ended              ended               ended
                                                     September           September          September           September
                                                        30,                 30,                30,                 30,
                                                        2000               1999               2000                1999
                                                   ---------------     --------------    ----------------    ----------------

<S>                                                <C>                 <C>               <C>                <C>
Net Earnings                                          $   1,914          $    1,880        $    5,331          $   5,284
Less: preferred stock dividends                           1,222               1,222             3,666              3,666
                                                   ---------------     --------------    ----------------    ----------------
Net income available to common stock                  $     692          $      658        $    1,665          $   1,618
                                                   ===============     ==============    ================    ================
Average common shares outstanding                         1,000               1,000             1,000              1,000

Net earnings per share - basic                        $    0.69          $     0.66        $     1.66          $    1.62

</TABLE>



                                       12
# C_2022073EN.01004201.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/42

---

Order of the General Court of 29 November 2021 — Bergallou v Council

(Case T-521/16) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - 2014 Reform of the Staff Regulations - Reimbursement of annual travel expenses and grant of travelling time - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 73/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amal Bergallou (Lot, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Tavena and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, in substance, first, annulment of the decisions no longer to grant the applicant, as of 1 January 2014, travelling time and reimbursement of annual travel costs so that she may maintain a connection with her place of origin and, second, an order that the defendant pay damages in respect of the material and non-material harm that the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Amal Bergallou shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Amal Bergallou shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | The European Parliament shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Parliament shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-98/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 WESTERN
RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
 FORM 10-QSB
Quarter ended June 30, 2005
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a 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 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;
 4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 on such evaluation; and
 (c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: August 15, 2005
    
    /s/ Cynthia A. MahlCynthia A. Mahl, Senior Vice President and CFO
No. 76-5025.

#### Kimmons *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct, App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
# C_2017256EN.01004101.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/41

---

Order of the General Court of 13 June 2017 — Sandvik Intellectual Property v EUIPO — Adveo Group International (ADVEON)

(Case T-115/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 256/48)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.

1

---
# C_2017213EN.01001402.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-417/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Figurative mark - Representation of a white and blue square-shaped packaging - Distinctive character))

(2017/C 213/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: I. Rohr and P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.

1

---
Case 2:02-cv-04408-WY Document 5-3 Filed 11/01/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04408-WY Document 5-3 Filed 11/01/2002 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Gary Velasquez, President and Chief Executive Officer of Vitria Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, as follows:



The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 13th day of November, 2003.



By:

/s/ GARY VELASQUEZGARY VELASQUEZ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




A signed
original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), has been provided to Vitria Technology,
Inc. and will be retained by Vitria Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Vitria Technology, Inc. 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1430 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1430

 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to reauthorize the 
            Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 26, 2017

Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Warner, Mr. Coons, Mr. Kaine, 
and Mr. Van Hollen) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
     and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to reauthorize the 
            Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 
Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 (Public 
Law 105-312; 112 Stat. 2963; 129 Stat. 2579) is amended by striking 
``2017'' and inserting ``2023.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 65422.

#### Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 318213-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Process Flow Diagram - Use of DP-111

Process flow diagram - CBI
No. 63018.

#### Buhler Brothers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/8082 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
# C_2017239EN.01007201.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/72

---

Order of the General Court of 24 April 2017 — Ipuri v EUIPO — van Graaf (IPURI)

(Case T-226/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 239/84)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.

1

---
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 99.1


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



To the best of their knowledge the undersigned hereby certify that the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Marine Products Corporation for the period ended December
31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of The
Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C.78m) and that the information contained
in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Marine Products Corporation.




Date:  March 21, 2003                     /s/ Richard A. Hubbell
                                         ---------------------------------
                                          Richard A. Hubbell
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)




Date:  March 21, 2003                     /s/ Ben M. Palmer
                                         -------------------------------------
                                          Ben M. Palmer
                                          Vice President, Chief Financial
                                          Officer and Treasurer
                                          (Principal Financial and
                                          Accounting Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

:

MADELINE CRUZ,

: CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : NO. 02-4372

 : 

PENNRIDGE REGIONAL POLICE :

DEPARTMENT, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

SCHEDULING ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2002, after a telephone conference

between the Court and the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. the parties shall exchange the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1)

starting September 9, 2002;

2. fact discovery shall be completed on or before December 9, 2002;

3. Plaintiff shall forward her expert report(s) on or before January 9, 2003;

4. Defendants shall forward their expert report(s) on or before February 10,

2003;

5. all dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed by February 24, 2003; 

6. if the parties do not file any dispositive motions, the parties’ Joint Pretrial

Order shall be filed by March 10, 2003. If dispositive motions are filed,

the parties’ Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed within fourteen (14) days

after the Court’s disposition of the dispositive motions. This case shall be

Case 2:02-cv-04372-RK Document 8 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 1 of 2
2

immediately placed in the Court’s trial pool, subject to the rules published

in the Legal Intelligencer, on the date of the filing of the Joint Pretrial

Order; and

7. proposed changes to the foregoing schedule shall be considered by written

motion only. 

BY THE COURT:

 

Robert F. Kelly, Sr. J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04372-RK Document 8 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 2 of 2
May 4, 1962

No. 66750.

#### A. Zerkowitz & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/16530, etc.

Abstract 66641. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.