alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly  Report of Golden  Enterprises,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended November 28, 2008, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Mark W.  McCutcheon,  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, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.

Dated:   January 15, 2009



/s/ Mark W. McCutcheon
----------------------
Mark W. McCutcheon
President and Chief Executive Officer

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




                                       22
#### Sheldon BRANDEBERRY and Ruth Brandeberry, his wife, Appellants, v. Elizabeth SCHLONGA, Appellee.

No. 68-584.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 5, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ CS WIND VIETNAM CO., LTD., CS WIND CORPORATION, Plaintiffs

- Appellees

v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

WIND TOWER TRADE COA LITION, Defendant

- Appellant

______________________

2017

- 1913

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:13

- cv

- 00102

- JAR, Seni or Judge Jane A. Restani.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
N ED H. M ARSHAK , Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Si lverman & Klestadt LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiffs

- appellees. Also represented by B RUCE M. M ITCHELL ; D HARMENDRA N ARAIN C HOUDHARY , J ORDAN C HARLES K AHN , K AVITA M OHAN , A NDREW T HOMAS S CHUTZ , Washington, DC; A NDREW S CHROTH , Hong Kong, China.J OSHUA E. K URLAND , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by C HAD A. R EADLER , J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , R EGINALD T. B LADES , J R .; P AUL K ENT K EITH , United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

M AUREEN E. T HORSON , Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant

- appellant. Also represented by D ANIEL B. P ICKARD , R OBERT E. D E F RANCESCO , III, D ERICK H OLT , U SHA N EELAKANTAN , A LAN H. P RICE

.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , Ch ief Judge, S CHALL and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 9, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
#### Rebecca B. McCUTCHON v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INS. CO.

No. 61807.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 354 So.2d 759.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, J., would grant.
Exhibit 15—Letter Re: Unaudited Interim Financial InformationTo the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Goodrich CorporationWe are aware of the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements and intheir related Prospectuses, of our report dated October 25, 2007 relating to the unauditedcondensed consolidated interim financial statements of Goodrich Corporation that are included inits Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007:     **Registration**    **Number** **Description of Registration Statement** **Filing Date**33-49052 The B.F.Goodrich Company Key Employees’ Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 June 26, 1992     333-03293 The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 May 8, 1996     333-19697 The B.F.Goodrich Company Savings Benefit Restoration Plan — Form S-8 January 13, 1997     333-53879 Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan — Form S-8 May 29, 1998     333-53881 Rohr, Inc. 1982 Stock Option Plan, Rohr, Inc. 1989 Stock IncentivePlan and Rohr, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan — Form S-8 May 29, 1998     333-76297 Coltec Industries Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan and Coltec IndustriesInc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors — Form S-8 April 14, 1999     333-77023 The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan and Goodrich Corporation2001 Equity Compensation Plan — Form S-8 April 26, 1999     333-60210 Goodrich Corporation Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 May 4, 2001     333-60208 Goodrich Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan — Form S-8 May 4, 2001     333-98165 Shelf Registration for Debt Securities, Series Preferred Stock,Common Stock, Stock Purchase Contracts and Stock Purchase Units —Form S-3 August 15, 2002     333-107866 Goodrich Corporation Employees’ Savings Plan — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-107867 Goodrich Corporation Wage Employees’ Savings Plan — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-107868 Goodrich Corporation Savings Plan for Rohr Employees — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-109247 Goodrich Corporation Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan — Form S-8 September 29, 2003     333-123721 Goodrich Corporation Outside Director Deferral Plan — Form S-8 March 31, 2005     333-124244 Goodrich Corporation 2001 Equity Compensation Plan — Form S-8 April 22, 2005     /s/ Ernst & Young LLPCharlotte, North Carolina
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14639]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer 
Communications Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer 
Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, August 21, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(202) 317-4110.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer 
Communications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, August 21, 2018, 
at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to 
make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due 
to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must 
be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact: 
Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-4110, or write TAP 
Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 1509--National Office, 
Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the website: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The committee will be discussing various issues related to Taxpayer 
Communications and public input is welcome.

    Dated: July 2, 2018.
Terrie English,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2018-14639 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles Edward NELSON.

No. 62692.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Charles Edward Nelson, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Beauregard.

Writ denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 8.1 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF COUNSEL CORPORATION  1.
    
    Counsel Capital Corporation, an Ontario corporation2.
    
    Counselcare, Ltd., a Delaware corporation3.
    
    Counsel Corporation (US), a Delaware corporation4.
    
    Stadtsub Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation5.
    
    Ahom Holdings Inc., a Delaware Corporation6.
    
    Counsel Nursing Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation7.
    
    Counsel LLC, a Delaware limited liability company8.
    
    Counsel Communications LLC, a Delaware corporation9.
    
    Acceris Communications Inc., a Florida corporation10.
    
    I-Link Communications Inc., a Utah corporation11.
    
    Acceris Capital Corporation, a Delaware corporation12.
    
    Acceris Communications Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation13.
    
    WorldxChange Corp., a Delaware corporation
(name changed to Acceris Communications Corp. in January 2004) 8.1
#### Edgar Borrero et al., Appellants, v Vincent R. DeAngelis et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 386]

In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties under a partnership agreement, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated June 12, 1995, as declared that they were entitled to 17% of the net income of the partnership as of July 1, *1994,*and directed an accounting using that percentage.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In July 1991 the plaintiffs, Dr. Edgar Borrero and his corporation, Edgar Borrero, M.D., P. C., became partners in the defendant South Shore Surgical Specialists. The partnership was governed by a partnership agreement which granted to a management committee the power to modify its terms by unanimous vote. In June 1994 the management committee unanimously amended the partnership agreement so as to modify the profit-share percentages, *inter alia,*reducing the plaintiffs’ share. The plaintiffs commenced the instant action seeking, *inter alia,*to recover an increased share of the net profits on the ground that the amendment of the partnership agreement by the management committee was improper. We find that the clear, unambiguous language of the partnership agreement authorized the management committee to modify its terms, and that the management committee properly adopted profit-share modifications on June 12, 1994, by the requisite unanimous vote.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 576 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 248
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 576

                          [Report No. 103-847]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5231) to provide for the 
 management of portions of the Presidio under the jurisdiction of the 
                       Secretary of the Interior.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

              October 7 (legislative day, October 6), 1994

  Mr. Beilenson, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5231) to provide for the 
 management of portions of the Presidio under the jurisdiction of the 
                       Secretary of the Interior.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5231) to provide for the 
management of portions of the Presidio under the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary of the Interior. All points of order against the bill and 
against its consideration are waived. Debate on the bill shall not 
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 248

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 576

                          [Report No. 103-847]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5231) to provide for the 
 management of portions of the Presidio under the jurisdiction of the 
                       Secretary of the Interior.

_______________________________________________________________________

              October 7 (legislative day, October 6), 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### Fred HAYES, Petitioner, v. L. L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. Q-363.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 3, 1972.

Fred Hayes, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s claim that he is entitled to a belated appellate review of his conviction under the principles discussed in Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So.2d 239 (Fla.1969), is denied on authority of Remp v. State, 248 So.2d 677 (Fla.App.1970).

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
#### THOMAS J. CHANDLER vs. WILLIAM BARKER.

Cause continued because the plaintiff was imprisoned in *solitary*confinement, and his counsel not permitted to see him.

Motion for a continuance. The plaintiff had been convicted of blasphemy and sentenced; at the present term, to twenty days *solitary*confinement, which were not yet out. When this cause was called for trial, *Macbeth,*of counsel for plaintiff, asked to be permitted to see his client, which the court refused; and he then moved for a continuance on this ground, which the court granted, though a trial was pressed by the defendant.

*Macbeth,*for plaintiff.

*Booth*and *Wales,*for defendant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DERRICK ANTRON MUSE, a/k/a D, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00502-REP-1)

Submitted: January 7, 2009 Decided: January 14, 2009

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Antron Muse, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Chase, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Antron Muse seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v.

Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its order granting the motion for reduction of sentence on June 27, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on August 22, 2008. * Because Muse failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

* See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ben
J. Lipps, Chief 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:

         (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.

/s/ Ben J. Lipps
--------------------------------
Ben J. Lipps
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 Consent Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
Parallel Petroleum Corporation We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.33-57348, No.
333-34617, No. 333-66938 and No. 333-117533) on Form S-8, and the registration statements (No.
33-90296, No. 333-112518, and No. 333-119725) on Form S-3, of Parallel Petroleum Corporation of our
report dated March 14, 2003, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders` equity, cash flows, and comprehensive income (loss) of Parallel Petroleum Corporation
and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31,
2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Parallel Petroleum Corporation. /s/ KPMG LLP Midland, Texas
March 14, 2005
# C_2020191EN.01003001.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/30

---

Action brought on 30 March 2020 — Himmel v EUIPO — Ramirez Monfort (Hispano Suiza)

(Case T-177/20)

(2020/C 191/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Erwin Leo Himmel (Walchwil, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Gomoll, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gonzalo Andres Ramirez Monfort (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Hispano Suiza — Application for registration No 16 389 397

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2020 in Case R 67/2019-1

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.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 46(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 531 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 531

 To express the sense of the House regarding the appropriate portrayal 
 of men and women of the Armed Forces in the upcoming National Air and 
                Space Museum's exhibit on the Enola Gay.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 19, 1994

 Mr. Roberts submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To express the sense of the House regarding the appropriate portrayal 
 of men and women of the Armed Forces in the upcoming National Air and 
                Space Museum's exhibit on the Enola Gay.

Whereas the role of the Enola Gay during World War II was momentous in helping 
        to bring World War II to a merciful end, which resulted in saving the 
        lives of Americans and Japanese;
Whereas the current script for the National Air and Space Museum's exhibit on 
        the Enola Gay is revisionist and offensive to many World War II 
        veterans;
Whereas the Federal law states that ``the Smithsonian Institute shall 
        commemorate and display the contributions made by the military forces of 
        the Nation toward creating, developing, and maintaining a free, 
        peaceful, and independent society and culture in the United States'';
Whereas the Federal law also states that ``the valor and sacrificial service of 
        the men and women of the Armed Forces shall be portrayed as an 
        inspiration to the present and future generations of America''; and
Whereas, in memorializing the role of the United States in armed conflict, the 
        National Air and Space Museum has an obligation under the Federal law to 
        portray history in the proper context of the times: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House that any exhibit 
displayed by the National Air and Space Museum with respect to the 
Enola Gay should reflect appropriate sensitivity toward the men and 
women who faithfully and selflessly served the United States during 
World War II and should avoid impugning the memory of those who gave 
their lives for freedom.
                                 <all>
```
# Sept 2020
#### Oscar N. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-180.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 9, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1972.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender; Gerald Sohn and Bartley K. Vickers, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., A. S. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., T. Edward Austin, State’s Atty., Charles P. Pillans, III, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.