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 January 27, 2007 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)
                                        March 12, 2007

                            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 January 27, 2007 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)
                                        March 12, 2007
# C_2022340EN.01001202.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — Universität Bremen v European Research Executive Agency (REA)

(Case C-110/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation of non-privileged parties in a direct action before the Courts of the European Union - University teacher - University teacher teaching at the university represented in that action and performing duties as coordinator and head of the project that is the subject matter of the dispute - Condition of independence - Existence of a direct and personal interest in the outcome of the dispute)

(2022/C 340/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Universität Bremen (represented by: C. Schmid)

Other party to the proceedings: European Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: V. Canetti and S. Payan Lagrou, Agents, and by R. van der Hout, advocaat, and C. Wagner, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2020, Universität Bremen v REA (T-660/19, not published, EU:T:2020:633); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2020, Universität Bremen v REA (T-660/19, not published, EU:T:2020:633);

| 2. | Refers Case T-660/19 back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers Case T-660/19 back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3917

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Desmond A.E. Jackson, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 23, 2005

Filed: October 12, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Desmond Jackson pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit interstate

transportation and sale of a stolen vehicle, a Class D felony, and was sentenced to 12

months and 1 day in prison and 3 years supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371,

3559(a)(4). While Jackson was serving his supervised release, he admitted violating

several of his release conditions. The district court1

 revoked supervised release and

imposed a revocation sentence of 16 months imprisonment without further supervised

release. The court recognized the Guidelines Chapter 7 recommended revocation
2

To the extent Jackson intended to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel

claim in his pro se brief, his claim is not properly before us. See United States v.

Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

-2-

range of 4-10 months imprisonment, but commented on the need to impose a greater

sentence in order to deter further criminal conduct given Jackson’s personal

circumstances, criminal history and numerous violations, and in order to protect the

public. Jackson appeals this sentence, complaining that it is above the recommended

Guidelines revocation range.

We reject this argument. The Chapter 7 Guidelines range is nonbinding, the

prison term is within authorized limits, and the district court considered appropriate

factors in imposing the revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing

up to 2 years imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release where original

offense was Class D felony); United States v. Touche, 323 F.3d 1105, 1107 (8th Cir.

2003). We conclude that Jackson’s sentence is not unreasonable. See United States

v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825-26 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review).2

Accordingly, we affirm, and we also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________
258 La. 915

#### Louis G. DECKER v. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, LTD., et al.

No. 51460.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 7, 1971.

In re: Louis G. Decker applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 247 So.2d 232.

Writ refused. The result is correct.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 50670 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Jorge Ortiz -**  **Juarez,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:21 - CR - 928 - 1

**___________________ ___________**  Before **Wiener, Stewart,** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Jorge Ortiz - Juarez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Ortiz - Juarez argues for the first time on appeal that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 27, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50670 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2024No. 23 - 50670

2 are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Although Ortiz - Juarez acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by Almendare z - Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review, and he has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyn e v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez - Torres . See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553 - 54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Ortiz - Juarez is correct that his argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, Ortiz - Juarez’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the judgment is **AFFIRMED** . Case: 23-50670 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2024
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 28, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 28, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21A0754. LINDA J. CARTER v. ZACK CARTER, JR. et al.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On January 06, 2021, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than January 19, 2021. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
Exhibit 32.2



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

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying quarterly report of GIANT GROUP, LTD. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the 
Quarterly Report), I, Pasquale A. Ambrogio, 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                        
|------------------------
|Dated: August 13, 2004  
|                        
|/s/ Pasquale A. Ambrogio
|Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 432 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 432

 Requiring the House of Representatives to take any legislative action 
necessary to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as a 
  part of the Constitution, when the legislatures of an additional 3 
               States ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 1994

  Mr. Andrews of New Jersey (for himself, Mrs. Byrne, Mr. Andrews of 
 Maine, Ms. Schenk, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Deutsch, and Mr. Hochbrueckner) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Requiring the House of Representatives to take any legislative action 
necessary to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as a 
  part of the Constitution, when the legislatures of an additional 3 
               States ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

    Resolved, That, when the legislatures of an additional 3 States 
ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, the House of Representatives shall 
take any legislative action necessary to verify the ratification of the 
Equal Rights Amendment as a part of the Constitution.

                                 <all>
```
# May 2021
# Official Journal C 37/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 37 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5930 January 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 37

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5930 January 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 037/1 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7844 — ACEK/Sumitomo/JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2016/C 037/2 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7833 — CDC International Capital/Mubadala Development Company/Vivalto Bel/Group Vivalto Santé) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 037/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7844 — ACEK/Sumitomo/JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

2016/C 037/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7833 — CDC International Capital/Mubadala Development Company/Vivalto Bel/Group Vivalto Santé) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 037/3 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 037/3

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 037/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7940 — Netto/Grocery store at Armitage Avenue Little Hulton) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2016/C 037/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7861 — Dell/EMC) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2016/C 037/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7929 — Mitsubishi Corporation/KKR/South Staffordshire Plc) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 037/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7940 — Netto/Grocery store at Armitage Avenue Little Hulton) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

2016/C 037/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7861 — Dell/EMC) (
  1
  )

1

4

2016/C 037/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7929 — Mitsubishi Corporation/KKR/South Staffordshire Plc) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Order entered Ju ly 2 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01345
- CR TIMOTHY ALEXANDER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 34377
- N



### O RDER
The Court has before it the June 28, 2013 motion of Kathleen Walsh to withdraw as appellant’s counsel based on the fact that appellant filed pro se motions indicating his desire to dismiss counsel and proceed pro se. By order dated July 1, 2013, the Court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss counsel and proceed pro se and the other pro se motions appellant filed. See Martinez v. Court of Appeals of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. , 528 U.S. 152 (2000). Moreover,
counsel states that she was already in the process of preparing appellant’s brief in this appeal. Accordingly, w e DENY the June 28, 2013 motion of Kathleen Walsh to withdraw as appellant’s attorney of record.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of Massey Energy Company (the
Company) for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Eric B. Tolbert, Chief Financial 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:

(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.



|               |  |                                           
|-------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|August 9, 2006 |  | /s/ Eric B. Tolbert                       
|               |  | Eric B. Tolbert                           
|               |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2023104EN.01000701.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A

(Case C-676/21, (1) Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö (Tax on vehicles))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Motor vehicles - Tax on vehicles - Second-hand vehicles imported from other Member States - Second-hand vehicles exported to other Member States - Refund of that tax on export - Restriction on that refund to vehicles which were put into circulation less than ten years ago)

(2023/C 104/07)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Intervening party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Operative part of the judgment

Primary Union law, specifically Article 110 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which a motor vehicle tax included in the value of each vehicle is not refunded to the owner of a motor vehicle in the event of its export for permanent use in another Member State, where that vehicle was first put into circulation at least ten years before the time of its export. It is irrelevant in that regard that such a vehicle was intended to be used primarily in the territory of the Member State which levied the vehicle tax on a permanent basis and that it was in fact also used in that way.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 57, 31.1.2022.

---
No. 76-6491.

#### Ball *v.*Wyrick, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 18-1194

SM ARCHITECTS, PLLC AND

ROGER STEPHENS

v.

AMX VETERAN SPECIALTY

SERVICES, LLC §

§

§

§

§

§ Dallas County,

5th District.

October 4, 2019

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

January 17, 2020

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under

the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, SM ARCHITECTS, PLLC AND ROGER

STEPHENS, pay all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 21st day of January, 2020

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GREAT
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 10-Q FOR THE SECOND QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
7, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-22-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-7-1996
<CASH>                                          117999
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   200288
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     832240
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1201411
<PP&E>                                         1565725
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2924221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1006334
<BONDS>                                         787798
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38220
<OTHER-SE>                                      817433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2924221
<SALES>                                        5422541
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5422541
<CGS>                                          3863406
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3863406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1471839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               36247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  51049
<INCOME-TAX>                                     15176
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              35873
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     35873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
        

</TABLE>
Richmond.

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. George Wade.

January 29, 1924.

Error to' a judgment of the Circuit Court of Spotsylvania county.

*Reversed.*

*S. P. Powell, D. V. M. Powell, John R. Saunderst Attorney-General, J. D. Hank, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General,*and *Leon M. Bazile, Second Assistant Attorney-General,*for the Commonwealth.

*W. W. Butzner*and *Wm. K. Goolrick,*for the defendant in error.

Per Curiam.

This case is substantially similar in its facts to the-companion case of *Commonwealth*v. *John Springer, Jr., ante,*page 719, 121 S. E. 654, decided to-day, and, for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment' of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings to be had not in conflict with. the views therein expressed.

*Reversed.*