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 Ambassadors International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Joseph J. Ueberroth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, 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), as applicable, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Joseph J. Ueberroth
|Joseph J. Ueberroth    
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 3, 2005         



The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely to accompany this Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Dewey ALLEN, etc. et al., Appellants, v. SANTA ROSA COUNTY, Florida, etc., Appellee.

No. 39799.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 13, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1970.

Appeal dismissed sua sponte.

DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., ROBERTS and BOYD, JJ., would transfer case to the District Court of Appeal, First District.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicataand collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 15 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ LEROY AUSTIN HANCOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. JAMES SAFFLE; MICHAEL D. PARSONS, Deputy Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-5116 (N.D. Okla.) (D.Ct. No. 95-CV-66-K)

____________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY , MCKAY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
Leroy Austin Hancock, an inmate within the OklahomaDepartment of Corrections, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 198 3 claiming a number of policies and actions by the Oklahoma Department of Correctio ns and its officials violated his First Amendment right to freedom of religion in the prison. After hearing the evidence, the district court denied Mr. Hancock’s r equest for injunctive relief and-2-

dismissed the action. Mr. Hancock timely filed an appeal in this court. However, Mr. Hancock completed his sentence, was discharged, and was released from confinement after filing his notice of appeal. The re was no period of supervision required. Prior to oral argument before this court , the defendants moved to dismiss this case as moot. Counsel for Mr. Hancockappeared at oral argument and informed the panel he was unable to locate his client and thus was unable to ascertain whether his client would agree to dismiss this case.
“This court will dismiss an appeal as moot, when pe nding an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, ... an event occurs which renders it impossible ... to grant [the appellant] any effectual relief whate ver....” In re Material Witness Warrant Nichols , 77 F.3d 1277, 1279 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and citations omitted.) Because Mr. Hancock only requested injunctive rel ief and has now been released from confinement, his appeal is m oot. See Green v. Branson , 108 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1997) (a plaintiff/i nmate’s claims for injunctive relief were mooted when the inmate was released fro m prison). See also McAlpine v. Thompson , 187 F.3d 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding an inmate’s claims for injunctive relief concerning th e conditions of confinement become moot when the inmate is released, notwithsta nding the inmate’s parole or supervised release status).-3-

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS as moot the appeal from the order denying injunctive relief.
Entered by the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


<PAGE>
                                  Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Larchdale  Ownership  Company,
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 (the
"Report")  I, L. Mark  Hammerschmitt,  President  of LMH Realty,  Inc.,  General
Partner of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18USC ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (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/L. Mark Hammerschmitt
-----------------------------------------------------
L. Mark Hammerschmitt, President
President of LMH Realty, Inc.
General Partner

         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) I, James G. Bradley, Chief Executive Officer of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation
(the registrant), certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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
registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting. Dated: March 15, 2004
    
    /s/ James G. BradleyJames G. BradleyChief Executive Officer
 85
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-99070) pertaining to the Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc.
1995 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan of our report dated January
2, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Chicago
Miniature Lamp (Canada), Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) of
SLI, Inc. (formerly Chicago Miniature Lamp, Inc.) for the year ended November
30, 1997.


Hards Pearson
Barrie, Ontario, Canada
March 1, 1999
# C_2022266EN.01002601.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/26

---

Order of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-154/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Confirmatory application made prematurely - Article 7 of Regulation No 1049/2001 - No challengeable act - Express refusal to grant access - Modification of the application - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 266/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Spina, K. Herrmann and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the alleged decision refusing him access to certain documents, which decision arose implicitly on 19 March 2021 in the absence of a response from the European Commission within the time period prescribed to his confirmatory application and, following the modification of the form of order sought, annulment of the express decision of the Commission of 9 June 2021, by way of which it partially refused to grant the applicant access to certain documents.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in relation to the request to modify the application, and the Commission is ordered to bear its own costs relating to the application. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in relation to the request to modify the application, and the Commission is ordered to bear its own costs relating to the application.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 17.5.2021.

---
#### Louis E. DURR, Jr. v. Christopher BAPTISTE.

No. 53358.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 22, 1973.

In re: Christopher Baptiste applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and/or mandamus and for stay order.

Writ refused. No error of law.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33915-33916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14859]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 13-39; Report No. 3098]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petitions for Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in 
the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Michael R. Romano, on behalf 
of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association (``NTCA''), and Kevin G. Rupy, 
on behalf of USTelecom--The Broadband Association.

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 2, 
2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 13, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Zach Ross, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, at: (202) 418-1580; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#075d66646f66757e29556874744761646429606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cd97acaea5acbfb4e39fa2bebe8dabaeaee3aaa2bb">[email protected]</span></a>.

[[Page 33916]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, Report No. 3098, released July 2, 2018. The full text of the 
Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission 
will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress 
or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 
because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.
    Subject: Rural Call Completion, Second Report and Order, FCC 18-45, 
published at 83 FR 21723, May 10, 2018, in WC Docket No. 13-39. This 
document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 
CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14859 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
H. Res. 576

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 7 (legislative day, October 6), 1994.

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.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2021357EN.01001401.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Asti (Italy) lodged on 30 June 2021 — WP v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale, Repubblica italiana

(Case C-404/21)

(2021/C 357/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Asti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WP

Defendants: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale, Repubblica italiana

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, Article 4 TEU, Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and Article 8 of Annex IIIa to the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank be interpreted as precluding a set of national rules or a national administrative practice which does not allow a worker who is a national of a Member State who has paid contributions to the national social security institution and who currently works for an EU institution, such as the ECB, to transfer to the pension scheme of that institution the pension contributions credited to the social security scheme of his or her own State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, Article 4 TEU, Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union and Article 8 of Annex IIIa to the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank be interpreted as precluding a set of national rules or a national administrative practice which does not allow a worker who is a national of a Member State who has paid contributions to the national social security institution and who currently works for an EU institution, such as the ECB, to transfer to the pension scheme of that institution the pension contributions credited to the social security scheme of his or her own State?

| 2. | Based on the answer to the question set out above, must it be possible to exercise the right to transfer contributions even in the absence of national implementing legislation or a specific agreement between the Member State of which the worker is a national or the worker’s pension institution, on the one hand, and the EU institution, on the other? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Based on the answer to the question set out above, must it be possible to exercise the right to transfer contributions even in the absence of national implementing legislation or a specific agreement between the Member State of which the worker is a national or the worker’s pension institution, on the one hand, and the EU institution, on the other?

---
#### Welburn GUERNSEY and Verlin Guernsey, d/b/a Guernsey City, a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. GUERDON INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-64.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

June 6, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shaheem Chavis, Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 903]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered May 25, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, so as to provide that all of the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by the court’s charge regarding the voluntariness of his statements is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Smalls,*185 AD2d 863; *People v Roth,*139 AD2d 605, 608; *People v Beaudoin,*198 AD2d 610). In any event, the charge, taken as a whole, was appropriate and adequately set forth the relevant factors and legal standards the jury had to apply in evaluating whether the defendant’s statements were voluntary *(see, People v Alvares,*219 AD2d 520, 521; *People v Bowen,*134 AD2d 356, 357; 1 CJI[NY] 11.01 *et seq.).*

However, the imposition of a consecutive determinate sentence of one year for the conviction of criminal possession *528of a controlled substance in the seventh degree was error. Under the circumstances of this case, Penal Law § 70.35 "contemplates that the definite and indeterminate sentences will be served concurrently” *(People v Leabo,*84 NY2d 952, 953). As so modified, the sentence is not excessive. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Amended and Restated Quarterly Report of Hemispherx
Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Charles T.
Bernhardt, 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 result of operations of the
Company.





Date:February 11,
2011





/s/Charles T. BernhardtCharles
      T. Bernhardt, CPAChief
      Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4587

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT H. BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-99-47) Submitted: December 19, 2001 Decided: January 15, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Audrey Freeman jaCobs, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert H. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order resentencing him for his violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (1994), following a remand from this court. See United States v. Brown , 6 F. App. 159, 161 (4th Cir. 2001). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Brown’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties to a criminal proceeding are accorded ten days after entry of the district court’s final judgment to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). This appeal period is“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on July 18, 2001. Brown’s notice of appeal was filed on July 31, 2001. Because Brown 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