alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Page 15 of 15


                               GENESEE CORPORATION

                                   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 Quarterly Report of Genesee Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending July 29, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Steven
M. Morse, President (as Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (ii) The information contained in the Report presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.


                                        /s/ Steven M. Morse
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Steven M. Morse
                                        President (Principal Executive Officer)
                                        September 8, 2006

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Genesee Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending July 29, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Steven
M. Morse, Treasurer (as Principal 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:

     (iii) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (iv) The information contained in the Report presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.


                                        /s/ Steven M. Morse
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Steven M. Morse
                                        Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
                                        September 8, 2006
STATEOFALASKA)ss.FIRSTJUDICIALDISTRICTAFFIDAVITOFNOTICEFPROPOSEDADOPTIONOFREGLATIONSANDFURNISHINGOFADDITINALINFORMATIONI,ScottJ.Sloane,EnvironmentalProgramSpecialistIII,oftheDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation,beingsworn,statethefollowing:AsrequiredbyAS44.62.190,noticeoftheproposedadoptionofchangesto18AAC50.030Stateairqualitycontrolplanhasbeengivenbybeing:(I)publishedinanewspaperortradepublication;(2)furnishedtointerestedpersons;(3)furnishedtoappropriatestateofficials;(4)furnishedtotheDepartmentofLaw,alongwithacopyoftheproposedregulations;(5)electronicallytransmittedtoincumbentStateofAlaskalegislators;(6)furnishedtotheLegislativeAffairsAgency,LegislativeLegalandResearchServices;(7)postedontheAlaskaOnlinePublicNoticeSystemasrequiredbyAS44.62.175(aXI)and(b)and44.62.I90(aXI);and(8)furnishedelectronically,alongwithacopyoftheproposedregulations,totheLegislativeAffairsAgency,thechairoftheResourcesCommitteeoftheAlaskaSenateandHouseofRepresentatives,theAdministrativeRegulationReviewCommittee,andthelegislativecouncil.AsrequiredbyAS44.62.190(d),additionalregulationsnoticeinformationregardingtheproposedadoptionoftheregulationchangesdescribedabovehasbeenfurnishedtointerestedpersonsandthosein(5)and(6)ofthelistabove.TheadditionalregulationsnoticeinformationalsohasbeenpostedontheAlaskaOnlinePublicNoticeSystem.DATE:uf/2,2°/IJu2au,AlaskaScottJ.SWai(EPSIllSUBSCRIBEDANDSWORNTObeforemethisIZ’dayof,9t2QL,2L)(I.(t167.rt7[NOTARYSEAL]NotaryPubIid’andforthe________________________________StateofAlaskaSTATEOFALASKAMycommissionexpires:tc)(1OFFICIALSEALCassidyY.KearneyNOTARYPUBLICMyCommissIonExpiresWithOffice.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

Pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Business Corporation Act, the
undersigned corporation adopts the following Articles of Amendment to its
Articles of Incorporation:

FIRST:  The name of the corporation is KNIGHT NATURAL GAS, INC.

SECOND:  The following amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was adopted on
November 12, 1996, as prescribed by the Colorado Business Corporation Act, by a
vote of the shareholders. The number of shares voted for the amendment was
sufficient for approval.

ARTICLE I.  The name of the Corporation is KALAN GOLD CORPORATION.

THIRD:  The manner, if not set forth in such amendment, in which any exchange,
reclassification, or cancellation of issued shares provided for in the amendment
shall be effected, is as follows: None.

This amendment is effective immediately.

                                  KNIGHT NATURAL GAS, INC.

                                  By:     /s/ President of Knight Natural Gas
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                      Its President
                                      Title
H. Res. 235

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

August 5, 1993.

Resolved, That, for fiscal years 1994 through 1997—

(1) the provisions of, and the procedures and points

of order set forth in, sections 16004(c)(2), 16005, and

16009 of H.R. 2264, as passed the House (One Hundred Third Congress), shall, with respect to the House

of Representatives, apply to any special direct spending

message the President submits pursuant to a presidential order as if that message were submitted pursuant to section 16004(c)(1) of that bill; and

(2) for purposes of this application, any reference in

section 16004(c)(2) to paragraph (1) or in section

16005 or 16009 to section 16004 shall be deemed to be

to the appropriate provisions of that presidential order.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Ronald Ray MOFFETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-430.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 18, 1970.

Henry Clay Mitchell, Jr., Pensacola, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Horace A. Knowlton, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of robbing a liquor store in Escambia County. He contends that the trial judge’s refusal to give a requested instruction on the question of identification was reversible error. Also it is contended that the prosecutor’s remarks to the jury during closing argument were prejudicial and warrant a new trial.

The State contends that the instructions to the jury concerning appellant’s alibi defense, together with the general instructions given, adequately cover the question of identification. We agree. We have meticulously examined testimony of the two victims identifying appellant as one of the perpetrators and find that such evidence was clear and unhesitating. It was therefore susceptible of belief by the jury. Appellant’s evidence presented in support of his alibi was equally clear and unhesitating. It too was susceptible of belief by the jury. The controverted factual issue thusly presented was resolved by the jury against the appellant. It is apodictic that we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the jury on such factual questions.

We have considered the remaining question relating to the prosecutor’s remarks and find that the tenor of the remarks when taken in the context in which they were made, including the retaliatory characteristics of such remarks, does not constitute reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### John CRISAFULLI and Julia B. Beensen, Appellants, v. John J. SCOTT and Alice P. Scott, Appellees.

No. 70-159.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 26, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Rogers F. Dykes, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Conner, adm’r, *et al. vs.*Cherry *et al.;*Griffin *vs.*English, sheriff, *et al.;*Barlow *vs.*Eason; Benson *et al. vs.*Jones.

On the facts alleged in complainants’ bill, the application for injunction and receiver was properly denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1624

In Re: JOHN WESLEY WINTERS, JR.,

Debtor.

_________________________

JOHN WESLEY WINTERS, JR.,

Debtor - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-24-5-BO, BK-97-1615-5-ATS)

Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: January 12, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wesley Winters, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Gregory Rhyne,

OFFICE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR, Wilson, North Carolina, for

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

John Wesley Winters, Jr. appeals from the order of the district court dismissing his appeal from the order of the bankruptcy

court dismissing his petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 11.

The end and effect of the judgment of the district court

appealed from is to affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy court

filed November 5, 1997. We note that the district court also denied the motion of Winters to rehear or reconsider its order dismissing his appeal from the order of the bankruptcy court. We have

reviewed the record and all the submissions of the parties and are

of opinion there is no reversible error in the judgment of the

district court appealed from.

We have also considered Winters’ motion for a stay of proceedings pending disposition of this appeal and are of opinion the

same is without merit.

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.

The judgment of the district court appealed from is

accordingly

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021019EN.01006701.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/67

---

Action brought on 16 November 2020 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Schuhwaren)

(Case T-684/20)

(2021/C 19/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 1 457 113-0075

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 in Case R 1649/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
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 Quarterly Report of Gold Standard, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), We, Scott L. Smith, President and director and Bret C. Decker,
Secretary of our 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 3/13/06                           /s/Scott L. Smith
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Scott L. Smith
                                         President and director


Dated: 3/10/06                           /s/Bret C. Decker
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Bret C. Decker
                                         Secretary and director
Exhibit 23.1
   (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88805) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. 1998
Stock Option Plan,
 (2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-79559) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc.
Management Stock Purchase Plan, Borders Group, Inc. Stock Option Plan, Borders Group, Inc.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Borders Group, Inc. Director Stock Plan, Borders Group, Inc.
401(k) Plan, and Borders Group, Inc. Savings Plan for Employees Working in Puerto Rico,
 (3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-114403) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. 2004
Long-Term Incentive Plan,
 (4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-120367) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc.
Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan,
 (5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-134847) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. 401(k)
Plan, and
 (6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-141863) pertaining to the registration of common
stock, warrants, subscription rights, debt securities, stock purchase contracts and stock
purchase units of Borders Group, Inc.
#### David ELDREDGE, Appellant, v. Etta D. PETTINGILL, Appellee.

Nos. 72-896, 72-897.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1973.

Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Miami, for appellant.

Cypen & Nevins, Miami Beach, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, defendant-appellant seeks review of the lower court’s order and judgment awarding to plaintiff *267the proceeds from the sale of real property, interest, and a full and complete accounting by the defendant to plaintiff.

In November 1968, plaintiff, Etta Pettin-gill, 85 years old, gave her nephew, defendant, David Eldredge, a general power of attorney so that he might manage her financial affairs. Unknown to plaintiff, defendant took $2,018.91 from her New Jersey bank account and used it to open a fiduciary account at the Coconut Grove Bank of Miami, Florida under the name of David C. Eldredge, attorney for Etta D. Pettingill. From this account he withdrew funds for his personal use. In September 1969, plaintiff, at the request of defendant, executed to defendant a warranty deed to her home in Margate, New Jersey. In Ocr tober 1969, plaintiff filed action in New Jersey to set aside this conveyance, but then withdrew it. Thereafter, the defendant sold the property and deposited the proceeds in the fiduciary account. Prior to the closing, plaintiff had to execute a quitclaim deed to defendant on the New Jersey property to clear up any clouds on the title caused by the October 1969 litigation. The defendant continued to withdraw from the fiduciary account funds for his own use. On November 1, 1971 plaintiff filed the instant suit for an accounting and other relief. At the close of all the evidence, the lower court found the proceeds from the sale of the house to be the property of plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay over the $20,900 remaining in the fiduciary account. The court also awarded plaintiff the sum of $11,398 plus $3,740 interest and further ordered the defendant to render an accounting of any funds coming into his hands after November 28, 1968. This appeal ensued.

On appeal appellant contends that the findings of the trial court were unsupported by competent, substantial evidence in the record and against the manifest weight of the evidence.

A thorough review of the record reflects that there was strong and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s findings that there was no gift to the appellant and that the proceeds of the sale from the house were rightfully the property of the aunt. See 15 Fla.Jur. Gifts § 23 (1957) and cases cited therein.

Further, the findings of a trial judge based on conflicting testimony come to the reviewing court clothed with the presumption of correctness and should not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. Marx v. Goldfinger, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 380; Pokress v. Josephart, Fla.App. 1963, 152 So.2d 756.

Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
# Official Journal L 399/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 399 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4930 December 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 399

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4930 December 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00020-CV

CARRIE M. LEO

v.

TYLER C. THOMAS AND NICHOLAS STACEY

On Appeal from the

444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-DCL-01028

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 3, 2022
**.'----'-'-----------------------------------------~** 

# Washoe CountyHealth District PublicHeruth Prevenl. Promote. Protect:

WASHOE COUNTY DISTRICT BOARD OF HEALTH CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION

WHEREAS, a need has arisen to prepare ''TheWashoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan forthe 2008 Ozone NAAQS: Demonstration ofAdequacy"; WHEREAS, this matter has been duly noticed and heard in conformance with applicable administrative procedure requirements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby adopts "The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS: Demonstration ofAdequacy". "The Washoe County Portion ofthe Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS: Demonstration ofAdequacy" was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Washoe County District Board of Health, on the motion of Humphreys, seconded by Hess, on the 28th day ofFebruary, 2013, by the following vote ofthe Board: AYES: Smith, Jung, Furman, Hess, Humphreys, Zadra NAYS: None ABSENT: Ratti

# ~M~ Kevin Dick Interim District Health Officer



# (/I!tlt

# ;2=-~. A M Smith III :::: Chairman

1001 EAST NINTH STREETI P.O. BOX 11130, RENO, NEVADA89520 (775) 328-2400 FAX (775) 328-2279 www.washoecounty.us/health WASHOE COUNTY ISAN EQUALOPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 

# .,
263 La. 995

#### Frank GALMICHE, Administrator of the Estate of Linda Galmiche v. John R. SMITH, and Transportation Vehicles, Inc.

No. 53055.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 21, 1972.

In re: Allstate Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 269 So.2d 490.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in the judgment.