alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of NNN 2003 Value Fund, LLC (the“Company”) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:          (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of    the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Richard T. Hutton, Jr.       Richard T. Hutton, Jr. *Chief Executive Officer*Date: November 14, 2005     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.     The foregoing certification is being furnished with theCompany’s Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general information language in suchfiling.
No. 47925.

#### Protest 90614-K of Rodier, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the woven silk mufflers in question were imported prior to the effective date of the trade agreement with the United Kingdom and are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 45938. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was therefore sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Harris, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 377]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered June 22, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury *367verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Police pursuit which restricts an individual’s freedom of movement, like a forcible stop, must be based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed *(see, People v Martinez,*80 NY2d 444, 447). In this case, however, the police did not impede the defendant’s freedom of movement by pursuing him. The defendant’s flight was not in response to any approach or pursuit by the police, but was precipitated solely by the defendant’s observation of a passing patrol car.

Upon observing the defendant and a companion flee up a driveway toward the rear of a private residence at 1:45 a.m., the police officers had a founded suspicion that criminality was afoot, justifying their further investigation *(see, People v Howard,*50 NY2d 583, 592, *cert denied*449 US 1023; *People v Gray,*90 AD2d 405). One of the officers unobtrusively approached the area to which the defendant had fled where the officer observed him with a gun in his hand. At that point, the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant *(see, People v Gray, supra,*at 408).

The police conduct in this case was justified at its inception and reasonably limited in scope at each step in response to the circumstances presented *(see, People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 221; *People v Gray, supra,*at 408). Since the police action was proper, the recovery of the gun was lawful *(see, People v Leung,*68 NY2d 734, 736-737). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Re:   Global Energy Group, Inc.
      Form 10-KSB

Gentlemen:

As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report
and to all references to our firm included in or made a part of the Global
Energy Group, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Baumann, Raymondo & Company, P.A.

Baumann, Raymondo & Company, P.A.
Certified Public Accountants
Tampa, Florida
April 14, 2004
#### Henry Crandall, *Respondent, v.*Andrew Gourley and another, *Appellants.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 30, 2020

a1027 

# Order

Clerk October 30, 2020

162130 & (4)

BRUCE MORROW,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 162130

JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because

the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.
#### Paul Cushman *as Trustee, etc., v.*Charles E. Leland, *Appellant.*Charles E. Knowlton, *Respondent,*and others.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements, and motion to withdraw answer and dissolve injunction denied, with ten dollars costs against defendant Knowlton. Opinion by Boardman, J.
#### Iza B. Humm, a feme sole, v. Preston S. Brooks, *et ux.*

181 So. 885.

Opinion Filed June 8, 1938.

*Thos. W. Mcllvain*and *L. J. Cushman,*for Appellant;.

No appearance for Appellees.

Buford, J.

The appeal here is from an order deny:ng complainant in foreclosure 'suit recovery of attorneys’ fees.

The record shows that the note and mortgage were made and executed to Southern Gem Corporation, a Florida corporation, on January 23, 1935; that the note was endorsed and the mortgage assigned without recourse before maturity to Iza B. Humm, a feme sole. In June, 1935, the holder of the note and assignee of the mortgage went to the place of defendants and demanded payment of semi-annual interest; defendants did not pay semi-annual interest, contending that none was due, but agreed to pay the note and mortgage on presentation by the holder and assignee thereof on'maturity date thereof, the 6th day of January, 1937.

The note and mortgage were payable at the office of the original payee and grantee, No. 2395 S. W. 8th St., Miami.

. There is no evidence in the record showing that the note and mortgage were presented for payment at that place on *655the due date thereof, or that they were deposited there subject to payment and discharge.

It is alleged in the answer, and there is proof in the record, to support the allegation that the defendants did not. know the address or place of residence or location of the place of business of the holder of the note and assignee of the mortgage; that such holder and assignee agreed to present the note and mortgage at the place of business of the defendants on the 6th day of January, 1937, and that such holder and assignee failed to present said note and mortgage for payment and failed to make any further demand for payment prior to the institution of the suit. Conflicts, if any, in the evidence were resolved by the Chancellor in favor of the defendants.

We find on examination of the entire record, that it is not clearly made to appear that the Chancellor committed reversible error in the entry of the decree complained of. Therefore, it should be, and is, affirmed.

•So ordered.

Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Chapman, J: J., concur.
EXHIBIT 12.4

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 on Form 20-F of Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I 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 annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.  The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.





Date:  June 27, 2003





/s/ Alberto Lavandeira



Alberto Lavandeira

President and Chief Executive Officer











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 46191.

#### Protests 776524-G, etc., of Breakstone Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILSON WALKER, Sergeant First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 38, 23 CMR 262

*39No. 9262

Decided May 31, 1957

*First Lieutenant Jerome H. Gerber*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Colonel Walter J. Rankin*and *First Lieutenant Bert M. Gross.*

*First Lieutenant William K. Davenport*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Newton.*

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused contends that the law officer erred in his advice on the maximum sentence that could be imposed for the offense for which he was convicted and asks that the record of trial be returned to the board of review for redetermination of an appropriate sentence. He was convicted of committing an indecent, lewd, and lascivious act with another soldier, which carries a maximum punishment of a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for five years, and of soliciting named persons to commit, respectively, sodomy and an indecent act. The law officer instructed the court-martial that the maximum sentence for each of the latter offenses included confinement at hard labor for five years.

In United States v Oakley, 7 USCMA 733, 23 CMR 197, we held that a solicitation to commit an offense, in violation of the Uniform Code, is a separate offense punishable as a disorder, and carries a maximum punishment of confinement at hard labor for four months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for a like period. The offenses in issue here fall within this class. Thus, the law officer erred in his instructions on the maximum punishment. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the board of review for reassessment of the sentence in the light of this opinion.

Judges LatimeR and FERGUSON concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7154

ERNEST EDWARD BRIM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA L. HUFFMAN; R.A. YOUNG; RON ANGELONE;

PADMAJA POLAVARAPU, Physician; DENNIS M.

SPRAGUE; D.W. BARNES; OFFICE OF HEALTH SERVICES; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-1264-R)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Edward Brim, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;

Mark Dudley Obenshain, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, Harrisonburg,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brim v. Huffman,

No. CA-95-1264-R (W.D. Va. June 26, 1996). 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
Exhibit
      31.2





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**





I,
      Marc
      L. Rose, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Protalex, Inc.;





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 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
      registrant’s other certifying officer 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 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 is made known to us by others,
      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 on such evaluation; and





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





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.


Dated: July 31, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Marc L. RoseMarc
              L. RoseVice
                President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
                Treasurer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133163 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MICHAEL FAULMAN, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 133163 

 COA: 269287 

Macomb CC: 04-004691-NO 

AMERICAN HEARTLAND HOMEBUILDER, 

L.L.C., 

Defendant,

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,

and 

JAG CONSTRUCTION, 

 Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 4, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0416 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 24, 2007 

 Clerk
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8463 

To prohibit and establish penalties for the use of the identity of another, 

without authorization, to make available certain information, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2024 

Mr. SOTO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit and establish penalties for the use of the identity 

of another, without authorization, to make available certain information, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stopping Hijacking 

5 of Identity Expressly for Libel on Domains Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SHIELD Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USING IDENTITY OF ANOTHER TO 

8 MAKE AVAILABLE CERTAIN INFORMATION. 

9 (a) PROHIBITION.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8463 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—A person may not make 

2 available covered information on an interactive com3 puter service. 

4 (2) APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN PROVIDERS.— 

5 Notwithstanding section 230(c)(1) of the Commu6 nications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)), para7 graph (1) of this subsection applies to a provider of 

8 an interactive computer service with respect to infor9 mation provided by another information content pro10 vider on the interactive computer service. 

11 (b) CIVIL ACTION.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—An individual may bring a 

13 civil action against a person for a violation of sub14 section (a) in an appropriate district court of the 

15 United States. 

16 (2) RELIEF.—In a civil action brought under 

17 paragraph (1) in which the plaintiff prevails, the 

18 court may award the plaintiff— 

19 (A) an amount equal to the sum of any ac20 tual damages; 

21 (B) injunctive relief, including, with re22 spect to a provider of an interactive computer 

23 service, that such provider may be required to 

24 make publicly available a notice explaining that 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8463 IH

1 the source of the applicable covered information 

2 was a person other than the plaintiff; and 

3 (C) reasonable attorney fees and litigation 

4 costs. 

5 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) COVERED INFORMATION.—The term ‘‘cov7 ered information’’ means information that is— 

8 (A) libelous, slanderous, or criminal; and 

9 (B) presented by a person using the iden10 tity of an individual (who is not such person)— 

11 (i) without the authorization of such 

12 individual; and 

13 (ii) in a manner that suggests such 

14 individual is the source of such informa15 tion. 

16 (2) INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER.—The 

17 term ‘‘information content provider’’ has the mean18 ing given that term in section 230(f) of the Commu19 nications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)). 

20 (3) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE.—The 

21 term ‘‘interactive computer service’’ has the meaning 

22 given that term in section 230(f) of the Communica23 tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8357 

To provide that not less than 3 percent of the amounts made available 

for certain Federal-aid highway programs shall be expended through 

veteran owned small business concerns, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2024 

Mr. KIM of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, and Mr. CARSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide that not less than 3 percent of the amounts 

made available for certain Federal-aid highway programs 

shall be expended through veteran owned small business 

concerns, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Utilizing Infra5 structure for Lasting Development of Veterans Businesses 

6 Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘BUILD Veterans Businesses Act 

7 of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8357 IH

1 SEC. 2. BETTER UTILIZING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LAST2 ING DEVELOPMENT OF VETERANS BUSI3 NESSES. 

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defi5 nitions apply: 

6 (1) SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN.—The term 

7 ‘‘small business concern’’ has the meaning given the 

8 term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 

9 U.S.C. 632). 

10 (2) VETERAN.—The term ‘‘veteran’’ has the 

11 meaning given the term in section 101(2) of title 38, 

12 United States Code. 

13 (3) VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS CON14 CERN.—The term ‘‘veteran owned small business 

15 concern’’ has the meaning given the term ‘‘small 

16 business concern owned and controlled by veterans’’ 

17 in section 3(q) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

18 632 (q)). 

19 (b) AMOUNTS FOR VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSI20 NESS CONCERNS.—Except to the extent that the Sec21 retary of Transportation determines otherwise, not less 

22 than 3 percent of the amounts made available for Federal23 aid highway and public transportation funds made avail24 able under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, and 

25 chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, shall be ex26 pended through veteran owned small business concerns. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8357 IH

1 (c) UNIFORM CRITERIA.—The Secretary shall estab2 lish minimum uniform criteria for use by State govern3 ments in certifying whether a concern qualifies as a vet4 eran owned small business concern for the purpose of this 

5 section. Such criteria shall include a limit on the personal 

6 net worth of the veterans who own and control the small 

7 business concern. 

8 (d) REPORTING.—The Secretary shall establish min9 imum requirements for use by State government in report10 ing to the Secretary— 

11 (1) information concerning veteran owned small 

12 business concern awards, commitments, and achieve13 ment; and 

14 (2) such other information as the Secretary de15 termined to be appropriate for the proper moni16 toring of the veterans business enterprise program. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS