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





Section
      906 Certification





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Nutra Pharma Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rik J. Deitsch,
      Chief Executive Officer 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) 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:
      August 21, 2006





/s/
      Rik J. Deitsch


Rik
      J.
      Deitsch


Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Ex parte Anthony John TORRES.

No. 924-98.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 16, 1999.

Joel Perez, San Antonio, for appellant.

Mary Beth Welsh, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Betty Marshall, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION*

The opinion of the Court was delivered

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted for capital murder. He filed a pre-trial application for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming his prosecution was barred under Article 32.01, V.A.C.C.P., because his indictment was not timely. The trial court denied relief, and Appellant appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished opinion. *Ex parte Torres,*No. 04-96-00161-CR, 1997 WL 66164 (Tex.App. — San Antonio, delivered February 19, 1997). The District Attorney filed a motion for rehearing in the Court of Appeals, arguing that Appellant was not entitled to dismissal despite the untimeliness of the indictment. The Court of Appeals granted the District Attorney’s motion for rehearing and addressed its claims, but overruled the grounds raised. *Ex parte Torres,*966 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1998).

*663The District Attorney and the State Prosecuting Attorney filed petitions for discretionary review. In ground two of its petition, the District Attorney contends that according to *Tatum v. State,*505 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Crim.App.1974), Art. 32.01 has no application once an indictment has been filed. The Court of Appeals did not explicitly address *Tatum*in its analysis of this issue. In *Brooks v. State,*990 S.W.2d 278 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), this Court relied on *Tatum*and denied an Art. 32.01 claim, because the defendant did not raise the issue until after indictment.

Accordingly, we grant ground two of the District Attorney's petition for discretionary review, vacate the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and remand to that court for reconsideration in light of *Brooks.*The District Attorney's remaining grounds and the State Prosecuting Attorney's petition for discretionary review are refused.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC**

**ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-69951, 333-90635 and 333-39460) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-87749 and 333-32342) of Answerthink, Inc. of our report dated April 27, 2005 relating tomanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2). We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 14,2005 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2). 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Miami, Florida 

April 29, 2005
Case No. 8,732a.

#### McCREADY et al. v. The BROTHER JONATHAN.

[Betts, Scr. Bk. 489.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1853.

Admiralty — Collision—Amendment—Amount Claimed — Undertaking op Stipulators.

[1. An amendment will be allowed in an action of tort in admiralty increasing the ad damnum allegations, the recovery not being restricted to the amount claimed.]

[2. The undertaking of stipulators on a libel in rem for the loss of a vessel and cargo by collision is for their value, and they are not entitled to interfere in questions relating to the equity of parties to amend the form of their pleadings so as to bring within the action all the rights which may be legally determined by it.]

The libel in this case originally was by the owners of the vessel lost by collision with the steamship, for her loss, and also for the loss of the libellants’ cargo on board. On the trial, evidence was offered of a cargo on board belonging to other persons not named in the libel. This evidence was excluded by the court; and on a motion to amend, the libellants [Nathaniel L. MeCready and others] were granted liberty to amend so as to *1347•show that they were entitled to demand, iir their own names, the value of lost property, with the restriction that the suit should be ■carried on upon their own rights, as they •existed when it was instituted. Under that ■permission, amendments were put in, which the claimants moved to expunge, on the ground that they introduced new parties to the action, and also enhanced the damages demanded and the liability of the stipu-lators. The libellants insist, that the amendments do not go beyond the restriction of the order.

Mr. Lord, for libellants.

Mr. Sherwood, for defendants.

Before BETTS, District Judge.

Held, that the amendments, though not -entirely clear of ambiguity, plainly authorize proofs to the extent contemplated by the order for amendment, and it is not necessary for the protection of the claimants against ■evidence exceeding that limit, that the pleadings should be more precise or limited than to give them fair notice of the extent of the .libellants’ demands, in their own right, or in the rights of others whose authority to sue they had when the action was commenced. That the increase of the ad damnum allegations is mere matter of form; that, in an action of tort in admiralty, the court is not bound to restrict the recovery of the libellant to the amount claimed in the summation of damages, but an amendment would be allowed, of course, enlarging that claim. That the undertaking of the stipu-lators is for the value of the libellants’ vessel and cargo, and they are not entitled to interfere in questions relating to the equity ■of parties to amend the form of their pleadings so as to bring within the action all the rights which may be legally determined •by it.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 Certification of CEO and CFO Furnished 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 Samaritan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dr. Janet Greeson,
certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United
States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,
 
 (i)
the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 
 (ii)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  Date:
                  June
      17, 2009/s/
      Dr. Janet GreesonDr.
      Janet Greeson
                    Chief
      Executive Officer and President
 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.
No. 42095.

#### Protests 816699-G, etc., of P. Pastene & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The protests were sustained on the authority of Abstract 40880 and *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284).
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of DCI USA, Inc. (the "Company"),
does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that
Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: August 11, 2006                  /s/ Michael Gibbs
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Michael Gibbs
                                        Chief Financial 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.
No. 42116.

#### Protests 693437-G, etc., of Moosalina Products Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49302), *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389), and Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-62,718] 

                    By application dated April 10, 2008, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on March 14, 2008. The Notice of determination was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 26, 2008 (73 FR 16064).                 

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of lumber and woodchips did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. 

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding aggregate imports of lumber and the impact of Canadian imports on lumber industry in the United States. 

The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974. 

## Conclusion 

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of April 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

 [FR Doc. E8-10031 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2244

_____________________________
R OBERT W AYNE V AUGHAN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

. November 28, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , L EWIS , and R AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
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 Annual Report of Gavella Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry J. Santoro,
President, Chief Executive Officer 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) 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/ Harry J. Santoro
                              -------------------
                              Harry J. Santoro
                              President, Chief Executive Officer
                              and Chief Financial Officer


May 12, 2004
#### Air Express Intern’l Agency a/c Emil Leichter et al. *v.*United States

No. 7870.

Entry No. 724669, etc.

(Decided August 24, 1950)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, which is marked *“A”*and made a part of this decision, was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1880 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1880

   To repeal the health care law's job-killing health insurance tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2011

  Mr. Barrasso (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Ms. Snowe) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal the health care law's job-killing health insurance tax.

    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 ``Jobs and Premium Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTING PATIENTS FROM HIGHER PREMIUMS.

    Section 9010 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(Public Law 111-148), as amended by section 10905 of such Act and by 
section 1406 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 
2010 (Public Law 111-152), is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATE 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 International Smart Sourcing, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 26, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Kassel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 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 as of and for the period   covered by the Report. |

 

|   | /s/   DAVID KASSEL            |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |                               |
|   | **David   Kassel**            |
|   | **Chief   Executive Officer** |
|   | March 17, 2004                |
EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Interplay Entertainment Corp. and Subsidiaries


We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-50254,  Form S-8 No. 333-60583,  Form S-3 No. 333-50252,  Form
S-3 No. 333-59088 and Form S-3 No. 333-60272) of Interplay  Entertainment  Corp.
and  Subsidiaries of our report dated March 7, 2003 relating to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2002
annual report on Form 10-K of Interplay  Entertainment  Corp. (a  majority-owned
subsidiary  of Titus  Interactive  S.A.)  and  Subsidiaries  for the year  ended
December 31, 2002.


/s/ Squar, Milner, Reehl & Williamson, LLP
------------------------------------------
Newport Beach, California
March 28, 2003
#### United States *v.*Frank P. Dow Co., Inc.

No. 5968.

Invoice dated Yokohama, Japan, October 26, 1939.

Entered at Seattle, Wash., December 15, 1939.

Entry No. 2072.

(Decided December 23, 1943)

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Sharretts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement bas been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar articles were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses, incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, as follows:

> Item No. 203/71432 at yen 13.50 per gross, packed, less inland freight.

> Item No. 203/23675 at yen 38 per gross, packed, less inland freight.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value of the merchandise herein at the time of exportation, and that this ease may bo submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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 as follows: .

Item No. 203/71432 Yen 13.50 per gross, packed, less inland freight.

Item No. 203/23675 Yen 38.00 per gross, packed, less inland freight.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2013009EN.01004101.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/41

---

Action brought on 29 October 2012 — LaserSoft Imaging v OHIM (WorkflowPilot)

(Case T-475/12)

2013/C 9/73

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LaserSoft Imaging AG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by J. Hunnekuhl, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2012 and 6 August 2012 (Case R 480/2012-4) in so far as they rejected the applicant’s trade mark application of 29 August 2011 and order the defendant to register the word mark ‘WorkflowPilot’ in the trade mark register of the Office for Harmonisation for the Internal Market in accordance with the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2012 and 6 August 2012 (Case R 480/2012-4) in so far as they rejected the applicant’s trade mark application of 29 August 2011 and order the defendant to register the word mark ‘WorkflowPilot’ in the trade mark register of the Office for Harmonisation for the Internal Market in accordance with the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘WorkflowPilot’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 223 774

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected in part

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---