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


                   Certification Accompanying Periodic Report
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                              (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)

The undersigned, Eric Claus, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. ("Company"), and Brenda M. Galgano, Senior
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies
that (1) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 6, 2008 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
the results of operations of the Company.




Dated:  October 14, 2008                          /s/ Eric Claus
                                                  --------------
                                                  Eric Claus
                                                  President
                                                  and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer




Dated:  October 14, 2008                          /s/ Brenda M. Galgano
                                                  ---------------------
                                                  Brenda M. Galgano
                                                  Senior Vice President,
                                                  Chief Financial Officer


                                       71
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                   1,469,735
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              944,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                 6,884
<INVENTORY>                                225,647
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         2,750,337
<PP&E>                                     107,184
<DEPRECIATION>                              54,916
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,852,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      463,304
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,560
<COMMON>                                    13,022
<OTHER-SE>                               2,374,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,852,987
<SALES>                                  2,137,998
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,233,092
<CGS>                                    1,962,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              886,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (616,048)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (742,545)
<DISCONTINUED>                             126,497
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             21,000
<CHANGES>                                 (225,396)
<NET-INCOME>                              (616,048)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.040)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.040)


</TABLE>
#### Francis WHITE v. Irvan Wade WESTBROOK, etc.

No. 44534.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 9, 1967.

Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, for appellant.

John C. McLaurin, Brandon, Lipscomb, Barksdale, Steen & Caraway, Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



Principal Executive and Financial Officer - Section 906 Certification



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-KSB (the Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2003 of Taitron Components Incorporated (the Issuer).



I, Stewart Wang, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-KSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and:
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Issuer.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                                          
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Dated March 29, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stewart Wang                                         
|                     |  |     |  | Stewart Wang                                             
|                     |  |     |  | Principal Executive Officer & Principal Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 528 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 528

      Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a 
 commemorative postage stamp should be issued in honor of Dr. Benjamin 
                              Elijah Mays.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 21, 1994

Mr. Lewis of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Hilliard, 
Mr. Owens, and Ms. McKinney) submitted the following resolution; which 
     was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a 
 commemorative postage stamp should be issued in honor of Dr. Benjamin 
                              Elijah Mays.

Whereas Benjamin Elijah Mays, throughout his distinguished career of more than 
        half a century as an educator, civil and human rights nonviolent leader, 
        and public theologian, has inspired people of all races throughout the 
        world by his persistent commitment to excellence;
Whereas Benjamin Elijah Mays persevered, despite the frustrations inherent in 
        segregation, to begin an illustrious career in education;
Whereas as dean of the School of Religion of Howard University and later as 
        President of Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, for 27 years, 
        Benjamin Elijah Mays overcame seemingly insurmountable obstacles to 
        offer quality education to all Americans, especially African Americans;
Whereas at the commencement of World War II, when most colleges suffered from a 
        lack of available students and the demise of Morehouse College appeared 
        imminent, Benjamin Mays prevented the college from permanently closing 
        its doors by vigorously recruiting potential students and thereby aiding 
        in the development of future generations of African American leaders;
Whereas, as a mentor to Martin Luther King, Jr., Benjamin Mays has been called 
        the ``schoolmaster of the civil rights movement'';
Whereas Benjamin Mays was instrumental in the elimination of segregated public 
        facilities in the United States, and promoted the cause of nonviolence 
        through peaceful protests during a time in this Nation that was often 
        marred by racial violence; and
Whereas Benjamin Mays has been the recipient of numerous accolades throughout 
        his career, including 56 honorary degrees from universities across the 
        Nation and abroad and the naming of 7 American schools and academic 
        buildings and a street in his honor: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
a commemorative postage stamp should be issued by the United States 
Postal Service posthumously to honor Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mays.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2022084EN.01002701.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 12 November 2021 — Papierfabriek Doetinchem B.V. v Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co.

(Case C-684/21)

(2022/C 84/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Papierfabriek Doetinchem B.V.

Respondent: Sprick GmbH Bielefelder Papier- und Wellpappenwerk & Co.

Questions referred

| 1. | According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the assessment as to whether the features of appearance of a product are dictated exclusively by its technical function must be made having regard to the design at issue, (1) the objective circumstances indicative of the reasons which dictated the choice of features of appearance of the product concerned, information on its use or the existence of alternative designs which fulfil the same technical function (Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM, C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172). With regard to the aspect of the existence of other designs, what significance is attached to the fact that the proprietor of the design also holds design rights for numerous alternative designs? |
| --- | --- |

1.

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the assessment as to whether the features of appearance of a product are dictated exclusively by its technical function must be made having regard to the design at issue, (1) the objective circumstances indicative of the reasons which dictated the choice of features of appearance of the product concerned, information on its use or the existence of alternative designs which fulfil the same technical function (Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM, C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172). With regard to the aspect of the existence of other designs, what significance is attached to the fact that the proprietor of the design also holds design rights for numerous alternative designs?

| 2. | In the assessment as to whether the appearance is dictated exclusively by the technical function, is it necessary to take into account the fact that the design allows for a multicolour appearance in the case where the colour design is not, as such, apparent from the registration? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the assessment as to whether the appearance is dictated exclusively by the technical function, is it necessary to take into account the fact that the design allows for a multicolour appearance in the case where the colour design is not, as such, apparent from the registration?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does this affect the scope of protection of the design? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does this affect the scope of protection of the design?

---

(1)  Within the meaning of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

---
_________________

_________________ 1 (Slip Opinion) Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020)
Per Curiam
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other form al errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

# SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 17–1107 

### TOMMY SHARP, INTERIM WARDEN, PETITIONER v. PATRICK DWAYNE MURPHY
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT [July 9, 2020] 

### P ER 

### C URIAM



### . The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is affirmed for the reasons stated in McGirt v. Oklahoma , ante , p. ___. It is so ordered.

J USTICE 

### G ORSUCH 

### took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

J USTICE 

### T HOMAS 

### and J USTICE 

### A LITO 

### dissent.
EXHIBIT 32

<PAGE>



     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Whitemark  Homes,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  Barry Reese,  the Principal
Executive and 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 to the best of his 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 the Company.


September 5, 2012                  By:  /s/ Barry Reese
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Barry Reese, Principal Executive and
                                        Financial Officer


<PAGE>
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 Amended Annual Report of Apollo Gold Corporation (the
    Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003
    as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
    Report), I, R. David Russell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
    do hereby 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, as amended; 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: January 20, 2005
By:
/s/ R. David RussellR. David RussellChief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 267 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 267

Electing Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware to the Committee 
           on Education and Labor; considered and agreed to.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 1993

Mr. Michel submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Electing Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware to the Committee 
           on Education and Labor; considered and agreed to.

    Resolved, That Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware be, and 
is hereby, elected to the Committee on Education and Labor.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                9
<MULTIPLIER>             1000
       
<CAPTION>
<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                 2175
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                 7278
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                       0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            67020
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 7337
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                   7388
<LOANS>                                292115
<ALLOWANCE>                            2318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         393268
<DEPOSITS>                             274184
<SHORT-TERM>                           51042
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                    3852
<LONG-TERM>                            7289
<COMMON>                               437
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             56464
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>         393268
<INTEREST-LOAN>                        6241
<INTEREST-INVEST>                      1270
<INTEREST-OTHER>                       52
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                       7563
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                     3116
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     3987
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                  3575
<LOAN-LOSSES>                          65
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                     61
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        2139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        3261
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>             3261
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           1909
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         8.18
<LOANS-NON>                            1705
<LOANS-PAST>                           0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                       0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                        0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                       2329
<CHARGE-OFFS>                          123
<RECOVERIES>                           47
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                      2318
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                   362
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                    0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                1956
        


</TABLE>
#### Roy J. La FLEUR v. Arthur SCHEINUK and General Accident Insurance Company.

Nos. 9020, 9019.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 11, 1978.

Douglas J. St. Romain, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Monte J. Ducote, New Orleans, for General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., defendant-appellee.

Philip S. Brooks, City Atty., Allen C. Hope, Jr., Asst. City Atty., New Orleans, for City of New Orleans, intervenor-appel-lant.

Before GULOTTA, STOULIG and BOU-TALL, JJ.

STOULIG, Judge.

The City of New Orleans has appealed a summary judgment dismissing its intervention in Civil District Court Proceeding No. 597-814 entitled *“Roy J. LaFleur v. Arthur Scheinuk and General Accident Insurance Company.”*The incidental demand was filed seven days before plaintiff and defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the principal demand for damages which they had compromised.1 The City sought recognition of its privilege on damages recovered by LaFleur to the extent it had paid him workmen’s compensation benefits for injuries arising out of the incident upon which this suit is based.

We reverse. The petition for intervention was timely filed with leave of court as required by C.C.P. art. 1033 and service was effected on defendants on December 16 and 18, 1975 respectively. Obviously the litigants were aware of the City’s incidental demand for reimbursement before the joint *1234motion to dismiss the main demand with prejudice was presented for the trial judge’s signature. When the order permitting intervention was signed there was no basis for concluding this action was improper or that its filing would retard the progress of the principal litigation.

The cases cited by appellees in support of the summary judgment are not applicable. In *Compton v. North River Insurance Company,*281 So.2d 848 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1973), the claimant did not intervene in the employee’s action against the tort-feasor, but filed a separate suit to recover compensation benefits paid which conflicted with the expressed provisions of R.S. 23:1103 of the Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The Supreme Court in *National Surety Corp. v. Standard Accident Ins. Co.,*247 La. 905, 175 So.2d 263 (1965), held that an employee’s petition of intervention to recover damages for personal injuries could be filed at any time during the pendency of a timely filed suit of the employer to recover compensation benefits paid provided it does not retard the progress of the principal action.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

1

. Petition filed August 26, 1975. Intervention filed December 12, 1975. Joint motion to dismiss filed December 19, 1975.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 24, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00368

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.N., A CHILD,

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial C ourt No. 2014

- PA

- 02675

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant Brandon Wayne Malone's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby

GRANTED. Time is extended to July 29, 2015.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of July, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2021148EN.01001101.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/11

---

Action brought on 26 February 2021 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-125/21)

(2021/C 148/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin, and S. Grünheid, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of that Framework Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of that Framework Decision;

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

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Articles 29(1) and (2) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, Member States were to take the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 5 December 2011 and to notify such measures to the Commission.

The Commission considers that Ireland has infringed its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of the Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Framework Decision or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2008, L 327, p. 27.

---