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

      Certification Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350
      --------------------------------------------------------------------
           (imposed by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


         The  undersigned  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer
certify that this report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.



Date: June 16, 2008                                  /s/ Richard Crimmins
      -------------                                  ---------------------------
                                                     Richard Crimmins,
                                                     President and Sole Director
#### Ernest BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-278.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 29, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 10572.

#### Pabst, Auditor, *v.*The State, ex rel. The Sun Publishing Co.

Decided December 8, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Butler county.

*Mr. R. S. Woodruff,*prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. J. B. Con-naught on*and *Messrs. Neilan & Neilan,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                EXHIBIT (23)-2-

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Post-effective amendment No. 2 on Form S-3 to Form S-14 (No. 2-93037)) of
Unimar Company and in the related Prospectus of our report dated February 24,
1995, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Unimar Company
and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1996.


                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP





Houston, Texas
March 21, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 116 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 116

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

              For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 116

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
              For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
any provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
seq.), Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles shall be held and considered to have 
been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required 
visa fee. Upon the granting of permanent residence to such alien as 
provided for in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 
proper officer to reduce by the proper number, during the current 
fiscal year or the fiscal year next following, the total number of 
immigrant visas which are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of such Act, or if applicable, 
the total number of immigrant visas which are made available to natives 
of the country of the alien's birth under section 202(e) of such Act.

            Passed the Senate May 9 (legislative day, May 2), 1994.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 99.4



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Elaine Bennett, certify that:



I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Miramar Mining Corporation;



1.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



2.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



3.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                         
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2005 |  | By: |  | Elaine Bennett

Elaine Bennett
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.2



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 of Preferred Voice, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ernest Gillespie, Controller 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ernest Gillespie                         
|Ernest Gillespie Controller February 13, 2003



23
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<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 THIRD QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER
2, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   QTR-3
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-24-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-02-1995
<CASH>                                          113480
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   186382
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     896149
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1251292
<PP&E>                                         1546828
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2927883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1050193
<BONDS>                                         823054
<COMMON>                                         38229
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      762012
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2927883
<SALES>                                        7770282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7770282
<CGS>                                          5525246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5525246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2139056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               55281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  50669
<INCOME-TAX>                                     19030
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              31669
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     31669
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .83
        

</TABLE>
#### C. O. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 8245.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 11, 1937.

P. Robert G. Sjostrom, of Miami, Fla., for petitioner.

Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Plerman Oliphant, Gen. Counsel, Department of Treasury, and Chester A. Gwinn, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the joint stipulation executed September 4, 1936, for the consolidation of this case with the case entitled David Gross, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent (C.C.A.) 88 F.(2d) 567, and the motion filed by petitioner to enter the same judgment in the above-entitled and numbered cause as was entered by this court in the case entüled David Gross, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on March 2, 1937, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the judgment of the said United States Board of Tax Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed with direction to correct the tax assessed in accordance with the opinion of this court rendered on March 2, 1937, in the case of David Gross, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondent.
# C_2023071EN.01000601.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — BE v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

(Case C-132/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Articles 77 to 79 - Remedies - Parallel exercise - Relationship - Procedural autonomy - Effectiveness of the protection rules established by that regulation - Consistent and homogeneous application of those rules throughout the European Union - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2023/C 71/06)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BE

Defendant: Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

Interested party: Budapesti Elektromos Művek Zrt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 77(1), Article 78(1) and Article 79(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as permitting the remedies provided for in Article 77(1) and Article 78(1) of that regulation, on the one hand, and Article 79(1) thereof, on the other, to be exercised concurrently with and independently of each other. It is for the Member States, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy, to lay down detailed rules as regards the relationship between those remedies in order to ensure the effective protection of the rights guaranteed by that regulation and the consistent and homogeneous application of its provisions, as well as the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal as referred to in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11275 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ERICK ALEJANDRO LOZANO ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:18

- CR

- 14

- 1

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Erick Alejandro
Lozano has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lozano h a s not filed a respon se. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 2, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11275 Document: 00514941139 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2019No. 18

- 11275

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-11275 Document: 00514941139 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2019
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Garry Lon Brownlee, * From the 220th District 

 Court of Comanche County, 

Trial Court No. CCCR-07-03018.

Vs. No. 11-15-00182-CR * August 21, 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1061

To increase the funds available under title XX of the Social Security Act

for block grants to States for social services, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 28 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. RIEGLE (for himself and Mr. CHAFEE) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To increase the funds available under title XX of the Social

Security Act for block grants to States for social services,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Services Block

5 Grant Restoration Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that—

8 (1) since 1981, title XX of Social Security Act

9 providing for Social Services Block Grants has been
2

•S 1061 IS

1 the major source of Federal funding for a wide

2 range of social services;

3 (2) in all States, title XX block grants provide

4 substantial support for vital human services pro5 grams that are indispensable in assisting millions of

6 children, youth, adults, older adults, and people with

7 disabilities;

8 (3) programs funded by title XX dollars are

9 cost-effective since they are required by law to meet

10 objectives of—

11 (A) achieving or maintaining economic

12 self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate

13 dependency;

14 (B) achieving or maintaining self-suffi15 ciency, including reduction or prevention of

16 dependency;

17 (C) preventing or remedying neglect,

18 abuse, or exploitation of children and adults un19 able to protect their own interests, or preserv20 ing, rehabilitating, or reuniting families;

21 (D) preventing or reducing inappropriate

22 institutional care by providing for community23 based care, home-based care, or other forms of

24 less intensive care; and
3

•S 1061 IS

1 (E) securing referral or admission for in2 stitutional care when other forms of care are

3 not appropriate, or providing services to individ4 uals in institutions;

5 (4) funding for title XX has seriously eroded;

6 and

7 (5) the title XX program has never recovered

8 after suffering a $600,000,000 cut in the Omnibus

9 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 and is currently

10 funded at $2,800,000,000, nearly 45 percent less

11 than the fiscal year 1977 value in inflation adjusted

12 dollars.

13 SEC. 3. INCREASE IN TITLE XX AUTHORIZATION FOR

14 BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR SOCIAL

15 SERVICES.

16 Subsection (c) of section 2003 of the Social Security

17 Act (42 U.S.C. 1397b) is amended—

18 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

19 (4);

20 (2) by striking ‘‘each fiscal year after fiscal

21 year 1989.’’ in paragraph (5) and inserting ‘‘the fis22 cal years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993;’’; and

23 (3) by adding at the end the following new

24 paragraphs:

25 ‘‘(6) $3,000,000,000 for the fiscal year 1994;
4

•S 1061 IS

1 ‘‘(7) $3,200,000,000 for the fiscal year 1995;

2 and

3 ‘‘(8) $3,300,000,000 for the fiscal year 1996

4 and for each succeeding fiscal year.’’.

Æ
#### Donald ECHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-166.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 1, 1968.

*14Joe R. Wolfe, Clearwater, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In his first Rule No. 1 motion (now Cr. P.R. 1.850, 33 F.S.A.) petitioner alleged that while in jail and without benefit of counsel he gave an involuntary confession, that he was not informed of his right to counsel at a preliminary hearing where he pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery, and that the public defender’s office inadequately represented him prior to arraignment, at which he pleaded guilty. This motion was summarily denied.

Petitioner filed a second motion with the trial court. This motion, which realleged those grounds raised in the first motion, was also summarily denied. Petitioner has appealed from this second denial.

It is established that a denial of a motion asserting certain grounds serves as res judicata when these grounds are sought to be raised again in a subsequent motion. Blunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 49.

Even if the doctrine of res judi-cata were not applicable petitioner would not be entitled to relief. A petition requesting relief under Rule No. 1 must allege facts which, if true, demonstrate a denial of his rights. Stone v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 472. In this case petitioner made only conclusory allegations concerning the alleged involuntary confession and inadequacy of counsel. These allegations are insufficient to justify a full evidentiary hearing. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to show prejudice resulting from lrick of counsel at the preliminary hearing or from the alleged involuntary confession, since by virtue of his plea of guilty made at arraignment, with advice of counsel, the plea and confession were never used against him.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

LILES, C. J., and ALLEN and PIERCE, JJ. concur.
# C_2022148EN.01004802.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/48

---

Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — Civitta Eesti v Commission

(Case T-665/21) (1)

(2022/C 148/66)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.

---