alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32



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



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of Icoria, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 31, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    HEINRICH GUGGER                                              
|                      |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                               
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 31, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    BRETT FARABAUGH                                              
|                      |  |  |  | Vice President, Finance (Principal financial and accounting officer)



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.01    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 Ethos Environmental, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Corey Schlossmann, 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 and belief:  (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Corey Schlossmann By: Corey Schlossmann Chief Executive Officer  Dated: April 15, 2009  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2015096EN.01001102.xml

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-387/12) (1)

1

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Tomato processing sector - Aid to producer organisations - Expenditure incurred by Italy - Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 - Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Flat-rate correction))

(2015/C 096/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Italy (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Bianchi, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of the Commission implementing decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2012, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2012 L 165, p. 83).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 20/10/12.

1

---
No. 95-8992.

#### Sparks *v.*Stutler et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 45282.

#### Protests 988544-G, etc., of Blefeld & Goodfriend, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 44140 the glass atomizers in question were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) as claimed;
Case No. 9,309.

#### MAUPIN et ux. v. PIC.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 38.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1811.

Pleading at Law — Contract—Assumpsit—Plea in Bab — Another Suit Pending.

1. When a contract has been executed, in-debitatus assumpsit will lie for the amount due upon it.

2. Evidence of the pendency of a suit between the plaintiff Catherine alone, by the name of Catherine Frisset, against the present defendant, for the same cause of action, at the time of bringing the present suit, will not support the issue upon the plea of the pendency of a suit between the parties to the present suit.

[This was an action at law by Maupin and Catherine, his wife, against Francis Pic.] Indebitatus assumpsit for work and labor.

Mr. Morsell, for defendant,

contended that ns there was a letter stating the terms to be twelve dollars a month, and no count upon that special agreement, the plaintiff could not recover upon the indebitatus assumpsit. 1 Com. Cont. 228.

But THE COURT

(FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent)

said that, when a contract has been executed, indebitatus assumpsit will lie for the amount due upon it.

There was a plea in bar, that, at the time of commencing this suit, there was another suit depending between the same parties for *1169the same cause of action. The evidence to support this issue was of a suit by Catherine Frisset alone, who was one of the present plaintiffs, for the same cause of action, which was discontinued after the present suit was brought.

THE COURT instructed the jury that it was not such a suit between the same parties as would support the issue on the part of the defendant.
<PAGE>



                                                            EXHIBIT 21.1

                         IBS INTERACTIVE, INC.

                          LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

      The  following is a list of all of the  subsidiaries  of IBS  Interactive,
Inc. and the  jurisdictions of incorporation  of such  subsidiaries.  All of the
listed subsidiaries do business under the names presented below:

1.  CCL Telecommunication, Inc.
    Delaware
    (state of incorporation)

2.  IBS Holdings Corp.
    Delaware
    (state of incorporation)

3.  Halo Network Management, LLC
    New Jersey
   (state of formation)
(Reap. Dec. 9650)

#### Standard Sewing Equipment Corp. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 1030057; 1035401.

(Decided March 30, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeals for a re-appraisement were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff,

An examination of the official records discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the value found by the appraiser. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 65809.

#### The Huffman Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protests 316845-K, etc. (Galveston).

*544Opinion 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.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                        Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Little Genesis, Inc.
1-800-PRO-TEAM, LLC
Athletic Supply of Dallas, LLC
Lilliput Motor Company, LLC
First Step Designs, LLC
The Voyager's Collection, LLC
Competitive Edge Golf, LLC
Childswork/Childsplay, LLC
Ninos, LLC
Hot Off The Ice, LLC
Gifts for Grandkids, LLC
Beyond The Horizon, LLC
The Training Camp, LLC
Affinity College and University Catalogs, LLC
Genesis Direct Operations L.L.C.
Genesis Direct Secaucus Operations, LLC
Genesis Direct Memphis Operations, LLC
Genesis Direct Memphis Services, LLC
Global Friends, LLC
Command Performance, LLC
Merchandise Manufacturing, LLC
The Music Stand, LLC
Nothin' But Hoops, LLC
Soccer Madness, LLC
ExL Catalogs, LLC
Genesis Direct Citybooks, LLC
Sportime, LLC
Romance Boutique, LLC
Sport Kids, LLC
Manny's Baseball Land, LLC
Genesis Direct Europe, LLC
Biobottoms, LLC
Pro Sports Liquidators, LLC
Genesis Direct Thirty-Seven, LLC

_______________________
Subsidiaries not included on this list, considered in the aggregate as a single
subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary as of March 28, 1998.
*After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and

judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of

orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the

terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUN 5 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM LOGGINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FRED PHILS, Medical Director,

Sedgwick County Detention Facility;

SEDGWICK COUNTY MEDICAL

STAFF,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-3402

(D.C. No. 00-CV-3251-GTV)

(Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

William Loggins brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

alleging his civil rights were violated when the medical staff at the Sedgwick
-2-

County (Kansas) Detention Facility dispensed medication to him without first

performing a physical examination or securing a doctor’s prescription. Mr.

Loggins claims he has suffered significant side effects as a result of taking the

medication. The district court concluded that Mr. Loggins’ complaint failed to

state a claim on which relief could be granted and dismissed it pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule

12(b)(6). Sutton v. Utah State School for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236

(10th Cir. 1999). Because Mr. Loggins is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are to

be liberally construed. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Nevertheless, a pro se plaintiff retains “the burden of alleging sufficient facts on

which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Id. 

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, and affirm the district

court’s dismissal for substantially the reasons stated in its Order of December 5,

2000. Mr. Loggins states, at most, a claim of medical malpractice. While prisons

are obligated to provide medical care to their inmates, Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 103 (1976), “[m]edical malpractice does not become a constitutional

violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Id. at 106. Mr. Loggins has

alleged no facts that evidence the “deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs [that] is necessary in order to have a semblance of a § 1983 case.” Daniels
-3-

v. Gilbreath, 668 F.2d 477, 482 (10th Cir. 1982). 

The dismissal by the district court is AFFIRMED. Mr. Loggins is

reminded of his continuing obligation to make partial payments of the docketing

fees until they are fully paid. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Circuit Judge
# C_2013164EN.01001602.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning device)

(Case T-55/12) (1)

1

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cleaning device - Community three-dimensional mark representing a cleaning device fitted with a spraying device and a sponge - Declaration of invalidity)

2013/C 164/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Su-Shan Chen (Sanchong, Taiwan) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: AM Denmark A/S (Kokkedal, Denmark) (represented by: C. Type Jardorf, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2011 (Case R 2179/2010-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between AM Denmark A/S and Su-Shan Chen

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Su-Shan Chen to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Su-Shan Chen to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.

1

---
No. 49424.

#### Protests 65989-K-90529, etc., of J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of lens blanks similar to those involved in Abstract 48016. In accordance therewith the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 226 was sustained.
# C_2012366EN.01003501.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/35

---

Order of the General Court of 8 October 2012 — ClientEarth v Council

(Case T-62/12) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Opinion issued by the legal service of the Council concerning a draft regulation of the Parliament and of the Council related to public access to the documents of the Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission - Confirmation of a refusal to grant full access - Inadmissibility - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Notion of measure open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU - Confirmatory measure)

2012/C 366/70

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and C. Fekete, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Council’s decision of 1 December 2011 confirming the decision to refuse the applicant full access to an opinion issued by the legal service of the Council (Document No 6865/09) concerning a draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.

| 3. | ClientEarth is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

ClientEarth is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.

1

---
# C_2013352EN.01002402.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/24

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Vasilev v Commission

(Case F-77/12) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/208/11 - Lack of availability, at the preliminary test, of a keyboard for the applicant to use to which he was accustomed - Refusal of admission to the assessment tests - Equal treatment)

2013/C 352/46

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vasil Vasilev (Sandanski, Bulgaia) (represented by: R. Nedin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and N. Nikolova, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AD/208/11.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Mr Vasilev to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Vasilev to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 18.

1

---
No. 55557.

#### Allcom Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159293-K (B), etc. (New York).

Opinion by Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Aircraft parts store: No one flies without supplies

By Airman 1st Class Alexandria Lee100th Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs

                RAF MILDENHALL, England   –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Royal Air Force Mildenhall website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Royal Air Force Mildenhall100th Logistics Readiness SquadronAerospace Ground Equipmentaircraft partspartsmaintenanceaircraft parts storekits
Faulk, Scott (OST)

From: Sent: To: Subject: Ainoa, David <david_ainoa@nps.gov> Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:46 PM EAS (OST) Servicing Kalaupapa,Hawaii

I would like to show support for Makani Kai Air for their service to Kalaupapa, Hawaii. whenwe were held hostage withunbelievable air fares no one else showed an interestinhelping the cornmuinty here at Kalaupapa butMakani Kai Air. Mahalo

David Ainoa 808-567-6126 work 808-336-0528 eel david ainoa@nps.gov daveainoa@yahoo.com

1
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 









Exhibit 10.26




Updated Summary of Verbal Arrangement for Compensation for

Steve Watkins





	 	1.	 	Annual salary of $113,300, which is payable bi-monthly; and







	 	2.	 	Benefits and perquisites on the same terms and conditions as available to all employees of Immediatek,
Inc. and its subsidiaries.






 


6
# C_2014129EN.01002001.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Borrajo Canelo and Others v OHIM

(Case T-381/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Proceedings for revocation - Community word mark PALMA MULATA - Genuine use - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctiveness))

(2014/C 129/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Ana Borrajo Canelo (Madrid, Spain); Carlos Borrajo Canelo (Madrid); and Luis Borrajo Canelo (Madrid) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tecnoazúcar (Havana, Cuba) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2012 (Case R 2265/2010-2) concerning proceedings for revocation between Ana Borrajo Canelo, Carlos Borrajo Canelo and Luis Borrajo Canelo, of the one part, and Tecnoazúcar, of the other.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Ana Borrajo Canelo, Mr Carlos Borrajo Canelo and Mr Luis Borrajo Canelo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Ana Borrajo Canelo, Mr Carlos Borrajo Canelo and Mr Luis Borrajo Canelo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 17

- 00526

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L. J. G. , et al., Children

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA00461

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portion of the trial court’s order

terminating appellant’s parental rights is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the trial

court for further proceedings. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed in relation to this appeal

because appellant qualifies as indigent under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.

SIGNED January 10 , 2018.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice