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

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of EarthFirst Technologies, Incorporated (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge and belief, that:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Form 10-KSB) of the Company 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 Form
10-KSB fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2006 |  | /s/ John D. Stanton                  
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
#### Ronald K. THOMAS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT.

No. 98-C-0287.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Ronald K. Thomas;—Plaintiff; applying for reconsideration of this Court’s Order dated March 27, 1998; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, No. 419,944, Div. “A”; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA97 0444.

Reconsideration denied. The application was untimely.

TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.
Exhibit
32

ANSWERTHINK,
INC

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of Answerthink, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended January 2, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), we, Ted A. Fernandez, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer, and John F. Brennan, Executive Vice President, Finance and
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:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
  section 13 (a) 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.

| | /s/ Ted A. Fernandez                                             
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                  
| | Ted A. Fernandez                                                 
| | Chairman of the Board and
    Chief Executive Officer            
| | March 15, 2004                                                   
| |                                                                  
| | /s/ John F. Brennan                                              
| |                                                                  
| | John F. Brennan                                                  
| | Executive Vice President, Finance and
    Chief Financial Officer
| | March 15, 2004                                                   

A signed original of this statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Answerthink, Inc. and will be retained by
Answerthink, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

---

---
#### Globe Shipping Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6472.

Entry No. 642, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, February 23, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 12, 1946, etc.

(Decided October 29, 1946)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, liereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon •the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 4.91






Exhibit 4.91 



	Glenn Melosh 	November 6, 2007 
	2685 Sunrise Avenue 	  
	Santa Rosa, CA 	  
	95409 	  


Dear Glenn:

RE: CHIEF DEVELOPMENT GEOLOGIST

I am pleased to confirm that Nevada Geothermal Power Company
(NGPC) wishes to secure your services on a long term basis by entering into a
contract under which you to provide geological and exploration management
services to the NGPC. You will report to Kim Niggemann, Director of Resource
Exploration.

NGPC will pay a retainer amount of $10,000/mo to December 31,
2008 which will be payment for 15 days/month of dedicated work by you to
exclusively for NGPC. Additional days worked in any month will be charged at
$750/day. As an independent consultant, you will provide your own home office
support, WC coverage and general liability insurance.

Geological planning and management work can be done from your
home office in Santa Rosa, CA. The contract will require work out of NGPC's
Reno, Nevada and on projects in the field. When away from your home office we
will cover all room and board and travel expenses upon submittal of receipts. We
will reimburse you on a mileage rate for the use of your personal truck on NGPC
business at the rate of $.50/mile or, alternatively, we will provide you with a
vehicle for field work.

Your primary role will be to design and implement resource
exploration and development programs at the Company's geothermal properties in
Nevada and Oregon. You will assist in planning relating to the Blue Mountain
development drilling currently underway. You will have a primary role in
updating the reservoir model for the Blue Mountain Resource as the project is
developed to production. As your role and the work you are performing increases,
NGPC would like the opportunity to increase the number of dedicated work hours
from 15 days per month to some mutually agreeable number.

We are looking forward to an exciting future with Nevada
Geothermal Power Company and would be very pleased to have you on the team. I
look forward to working with you.

If you are in agreement with the general terms outlined above,
please sign where indicated below. We will replace this letter of understanding
with a contract agreement.

Yours Sincerely,

	NEVADA GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY 	Offer accepted: 
	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	     Brian D, Fairbank, P.Eng. 	Glenn Melosh 
	     President
# C_2013026EN.01001903.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH

(Case C-469/12)

2013/C 26/35

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is a contract for the storage of goods a contract for the ‘provision of services’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32

             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 amended quarterly report of Caneum, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer and principal
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 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.


Date:  December 23, 2003

/s/ Sukhbir Singh Mudan
Sukhbir Singh Mudan, President and
Treasurer (Principal executive officer
and principal financial officer)
EXHIBIT 99.2
------------

     Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Harry  Chauhan,  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of Global  Wireless
Satellite Networks (USA), Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the  Company for the quarter  ended
September  30, 2004 (the  "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 Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 22, 2004


/s/ Harry Chauhan
------------------------
Harry Chauhan
President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 96-5910.

#### Jones *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 96-5894.

#### Parrish *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2013055EN.01000701.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/7

---

Appeal brought on 18 December 2012 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2012 in Case T-204/10: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-593/12 P)

2013/C 55/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2012 in Case T-204/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2012 in Case T-204/10;

| — | Order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and before the General Court, as well as the costs of the proceedings before the Office’s Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and before the General Court, as well as the costs of the proceedings before the Office’s Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

| | First, the Appellant claims that the General Court violated Article 53(1) CTMR (1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in deciding that the Office was justified in finding that COLOR FOCUS must be declared invalid because of likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

First, the Appellant claims that the General Court violated Article 53(1) CTMR (1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in deciding that the Office was justified in finding that COLOR FOCUS must be declared invalid because of likelihood of confusion.

1

| | Second, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed reversible legal error in dismissing the Appellant’s claim that the assertion of rights based on the mark FOCUS amounts to an ‘abuse of rights’. |
| --- | --- |

Second, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed reversible legal error in dismissing the Appellant’s claim that the assertion of rights based on the mark FOCUS amounts to an ‘abuse of rights’.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

1

OJ L 78, p. 1

---
# C_2013336EN.01003001.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/30

---

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — National Trust for Scotland v OHIM — Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (ST KILDA)

(Case T-222/12) (1)

1

2013/C 336/64

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

1

---
#### Maureace DAVIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 99-1253.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 7, 1999.

Maureace Davis, pro se, petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By petition seeking belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j), petitioner asserts that he timely requested that court appointed counsel file a notice of appeal. In response to an order to show cause, the state does not object to the belated appeal. Accordingly, we grant the request for a delat-ed appeal of the December 22, 1998, judgment and sentence entered in Gadsden County Circuit Court case number 98-74-CFB. The trial court shall treat this court’s mandate as the notice of appeal. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(j)(5)(D). If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent petitioner on appeal.

JOANOS, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
No. 46446.

#### Protests 50959-K, etc., of Border Brokerage Co. et al. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States,*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). Tt was held that no addition should have been made to the imported quantity for planing or tonguing and grooving. The protests were therefore sustained in accordance with the number of board feet agreed upon.
No. 54933.

#### Leacock & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 149707-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of certain embroidered flax articles, was not in fact imported. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon certain embroidered flax articles. The protest was sustained to this extent.
# C_2012227EN.01002202.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/22

---

Order of the General Court of 12 June 2012 — Strack v Commission

(Case T-65/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Order of referral - Decision which cannot be the object of an appeal - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

2012/C 227/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and B. Eggers, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 7 December 2011 in Case F-44/05 RENV Strack v Commission (not published in the ECR), and seeking that that order be quashed.

Strack

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Guido Strack is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Guido Strack is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present case.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

1

---
No. 48804.

#### Protests 81406-K, etc., of Central Vermont Railway, Inc., et al. (St. Albans and San Francisco).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 46459.

#### Protest 62611-K of Remington Rand, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of an automatic verifying machine, the same in all material respects as the merchandise passed upon in *Remington Rand*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 249, C. D. 474), the claim of 27)4 percent under paragraph 372 was sustained.
# C_2015302EN.01004201.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (ECOSE TECHNOLOGY)

(Case T-324/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark ECOSE TECHNOLOGY - Earlier national word mark ECOSEC FACHADAS - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 302/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Knauf Insulation Technology (Visé, Belgium) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by M. Montañá, S Sebé and I. Carulla, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2012 (Cases R 1193/2011-5 and R 1426/2011-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL and Knauf Insulation.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2012 (Cases R 1193/2011-5 and R 1426/2011-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the action brought by Knauf Insulation Technology and annulled the decision of the Opposition Division; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 May 2012 (Cases R 1193/2011-5 and R 1426/2011-5) in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed the action brought by Knauf Insulation Technology and annulled the decision of the Opposition Division;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Knauf Insulation Technology; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Knauf Insulation Technology;

| 3. | Orders Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Knauf Insulation Technology. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Knauf Insulation Technology.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

1

---
# C_2013046EN.01001701.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Winsen (Luhe) (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2012 — Andrea Merten v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

(Case C-590/12)

2013/C 46/31

Language of the case: German

Referring Court

Referring Court

Amtsgericht Winsen (Local Court, Winsen) (Luhe)

Parties in the main proceedings

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrea Merten

Applicant:

Defendant: ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Should Article 15(1), first sentence, of Directive 90/619/EEC, (1) in consideration of Article 31(1) of Directive 92/96/EEC (2) as amended by Articles 35 and 36, in conjunction with Article 32, of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a provision — such as Article 5a(2), fourth indent, of the German Insurance Contracts Act (VVG), as amended by the third Law transposing the Directives of the Council of the European Communities on insurance law of 21 July 1994 — under which the insurance policy holder’s right to withdrawal or objection expires, at the latest, one year after the payment of the first insurance premium, even if the policy holder was not adequately informed of the right to withdrawal or objection?

1

2

3

---

(1)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (Second Life Assurance Directive) (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

1

(2)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

2

(3)  Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 05 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1).

3

---