alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with the annual report of
Earth Search Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10KSB for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry F. Vance, 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 to my
knowledge:





(1) This 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 this
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and
results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      April 23 , 2008
            /s/ Larry F. VanceLarry F.
    VanceChief Executive
      Officer
# C_2022207EN.01000902.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/9

---

Appeal brought on 12 May 2021 by João Miguel Barata against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 March 2021 in Case T-723/18, Barata v Parliament

(Case C-305/21 P)

(2022/C 207/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: João Miguel Barata (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, avocats, V. Villante, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

By order of 31 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal be dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that Mr João Miguel Barata should bear his own costs.

---
# C_2022432EN.01002901.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerkstatt)

(Case T-706/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Stahlwerkstatt - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Okan Balaban (Bornheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Schaaf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment in part and the variation of the examiner’s decision of 27 August 2020 and of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 September 2021 (Case R 1987/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Okan Balaban to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Okan Balaban to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-40911

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROLANDO MOLINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-94-CR-199-4

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rolando Molina appeals his 235-month sentence resulting from

his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute in excess of one kilogram of heroin, conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of

cocaine, and use of a communication facility in the commission of

a controlled-substance offense. Relying on Bailey v. United
No. 95-40911

- 2 -

States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), he argues that the district court

erred in enhancing his offense level under U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(b)(1). Molina's reliance on Bailey is misplaced; Bailey

does not apply to § 2D1.1(b)(1). See United States v. Castillo,

77 F.3d 1480, 1499 n.34 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 65

U.S.L.W. 3086 (U.S. July 26, 1996) (No. 96-5357). The connection

between the weapon and the cocaine was not clearly improbable;

therefore, the findings of the district court were not clearly

erroneous. See United States v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 271, 277 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 455 (1994).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2023261EN.01002901.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/29

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 June 2023 — PAO Severstal (C-747/21 P), Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) (C-748/21 P) v European Commission, Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL

(Joined Cases C-747/21 P and C-748/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 - Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 18(1) - Necessary information - Absence - Article 9(4) - ‘Lesser duty rule’ - Target price - Profit margin of the Union industry - Establishment - Selection of the most recent representative year - Article 2(9) - Construction of the export price - Injury to the Union industry - Application by analogy - Calculation of the underselling margin - Statement of reasons)

(2023/C 261/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: PAO Severstal (C-747/21 P), Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK), (C-748/21 P) (represented by: M. Krestiyanova and N. Tuominen, avocată)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: K. Blanck and J.-F. Brakeland, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents), Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders PAO Severstal to pay the costs in Case C-747/21 P; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PAO Severstal to pay the costs in Case C-747/21 P;

| 3. | Orders Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) to pay the costs in Case C-748/21 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Novolipetsk Steel PJSC (NLMK) to pay the costs in Case C-748/21 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---
Exhibit 99.3 – CFO Certification

**CFO CERTIFICATION**

I, Jon Correio, as Vice President of Finance and Administration, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of ElectronicSystems Technology Inc.;

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

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a.    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;

b.    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisannual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c.    presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of theEvaluation Date;

5.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditor's and the audit committeeof registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant'sauditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b.    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated inthis annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls orin other factors that could significantly affect internal control subsequent to the dateof our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date: March 22, 2003

 

 

/s/ JON CORREIO

Jon CorreioVice President of Finance and Administration
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE RESTATED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HARBINGER CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          75,254
<SECURITIES>                                    31,050
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,773
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,862
<PP&E>                                          34,944
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,070
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                     135,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   186,421
<SALES>                                         10,203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,052
<CGS>                                              771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       136
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (217)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,338)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.03)
        

</TABLE>
### @t~(~**~l(e-** 

### , 6D8**~J** 

### f(qdttgf fd 

## 26 "A-UuJ 'York 

## Ai?**lo03~** ........... / ...... .. ..... ...... ... .
### NUMBER 13

- 1 8

- 00 019

- CR



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

HUMBERTO SOTO, JR. , Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

.

On appeal from the 3 6 th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant, Humberto Soto Jr. , attempts to appeal his conviction for aggravated

sexual assault . The trial court has certified that this “ is a plea

- bargain case, and the

defendant has NO right of appeal. ” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2).2 On January 10 , 201 8 , this Court notified appellant ’ s counsel of the trial court ’ s

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether

appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel ’ s findings

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the

exi stence of any amended certification.

On May 16, 2018 , counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel ’ s response
does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that

appellant otherwise has a right to appe al.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed

if the trial court ’ s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); see T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the 24th day of May, 2018.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 98-48

MACK A. MCCORMICK, APPELLANT,

V.

TOGO D. WEST, JR.,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, IVERS, and STEINBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

On May 3, 2000, the Court ordered that this case be scheduled for oral argument. On that

same day, the appellant filed through counsel a motion that this case be consolidated with the case

of Rochman v. West, U.S. Vet. App. No. 99-1282 (Notice of Appeal filed July 26, 1999), currently

assigned to a single judge of this Court. As the basis for his motion, the appellant asserts that

counsel for the appellant is the same in each case and that both cases "concern whether the duty to

assist pursuant to the 'Fire-related provisions' of the [Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

Adjudication Procedure Manual,] M21-1 [hereinafter Manual M21-1], requires the submission of

a well[-]grounded claim before being triggered" and concludes that consideration ofthe two appeals

together will preserve judicial resources. Motion at 2. 

On May 12, 2000, the Secretary filed a motion in opposition to the appellant's motion. The

Secretary asserts that (1) the appellant "has not presented any compelling reasons as to why these

cases should be joined"; (2) the two "cases are not at the same procedural posture" because the

instant appeal is being scheduled for oral argument and Rochman is still at the briefing stage; and

(3) "the mere fact that the [a]ppellants in both cases are raising duty[-]to[-]assist arguments

concerning the [Manual M21-1] . . . is not compelling" because Rochman may be disposed of on an

alternative ground. Motion at 1-2. The Court also notes that the two cases do not share a common

nucleus of fact and that consolidation would thus unnecessarily require three judges of this Court to

review the record involved in the Rochman appeal; thus, contrary to the appellant's assertion, it does

not appear to be in the interest of judicial economy for this panel to review the Rochman appeal.

On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the appellant's May 3, 2000, motion is denied and the Secretary's May 12,

2000, motion is granted. The Court will proceed to schedule oral argument in this case at the earliest

time that the business of this Court permits.

DATED: June 16, 2000 PER CURIAM.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Kyle Gregory Layman, Appellant

No. 06-21-00003-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 19th District Court of 

McLennan County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

2019-1650-C1). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Kyle Gregory Layman, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 17, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EXHIBIT 21  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY  Brooktrout Holdings, Inc.
  
  Delaware
  
  100%Brooktrout Technology, Inc.
  
  Delaware
  
  100%Netaccess, Inc.
  
  Delaware
  
  100%Brooktrout Business Trust
  
  Massachusetts
  
  100%Brooktrout Technology Foreign Sales Corporation
  
  Virgin Islands
  
  100%Brooktrout Securities Corporation
  
  Massachusetts
  
  100%Brooktrout Technology
  Europe, LTD.
  
  Massachusetts
  
  100%Brooktrout Technology
  (Europe) Limited
  
  United Kingdom
  
  100%Pelago Networks, Inc.
  
  Delaware
  
  15%  58
# C_2022340EN.01001301.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/13

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from a notario del Ilustre Colegio Notarial de Andalucía — Spain) — Frontera Capital SARL

(Case C-722/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 267 TFEU - Notary - Meaning of a ‘court or tribunal’ - Criteria - No dispute before the referring body - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 340/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Notario del Ilustre Colegio Notarial de Andalucía

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frontera Capital SARL

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by a notario del Ilustre Colegio Notarial de Andalucía (notary belonging to the Association of Notaries of Andalusia, Spain) by decision of 25 November 2021 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 25 November 2021

---
256 La. 872

#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. William R. BOLES.

No. 50830.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Richland.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the rulings complained of are correct.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Major WILLIAMS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53904.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Major Williams, applying for writs of prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus and other remedial writs.

Denied. The application shows on its face that the appellant is not entitled to the relief sought.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-11394 Conference Calendar

ROQUE T. ARANDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JEANNE MILLSAPS, Clerk, San Joaquin Superior Court; MICHAEL PLATT, Judge, San Joaquin Superior Court; SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:99-CV-333

- - - - - - - - - - August 29, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roque T. Aranda, Texas prisoner #805045, appeals from the dismissal, without prejudice, of his suit invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court concluded that “all of [Aranda’s] claims in the instant civil rights action arose out of or relate to his conviction and should properly be raised in a habeas action.” Aranda’s failure to identify any error in the district court’s legal analysis or its application to his lawsuit “is theNo. 99-11394 - 2 -

same as if he had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Aranda’s appeal is without merit and therefore frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Our dismissal of this appeal counts as a strike against Aranda for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Aranda that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### Maria DE LA HOZ et al., Petitioners, v. Manuel Antonio PORTILLA and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Respondents.

No. 42144.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 8, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 258 So.2d 520.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### In re ESTATE of L. R. SCAFFE, deceased.

No. 1-479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Nov. 30, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1968.

Clayton & Roberson, Deland, for appellants.

Carter & Carter, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order entered by the County Judge’s Court in Volusia County determining that the appellee, Cora Lee Flowers Scaffe, was the common law wife of the decedent and granting dower to said wife.

 We have examined the record on appeal and considered the briefs and arguments of the parties. Such consideration reflects that there was sufficient evidence before the County Judge which supported his findings that the appellee herein was the common law wife of the decedent. Where conflicting evidence is presented to the county judge sitting as the trier of fact, it is his function to weigh the evidence and resolve the conflicts in that evidence. Mendel v. Mendel, 147 Fla. 167, 1 So.2d 571 (1941).

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting Chief Judge, and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
# C_2022222EN.01000903.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/9

---

Appeal brought on 21 December 2021 by Luis Miguel Novais against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2021 in Case T-595/21 Novais v Portugal

(Case C-816/21 P)

(2022/C 222/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Luis Miguel Novais (represented by: Á. Oliveira and C. Almeida Lopes, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

By order of 11 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered Luis Miguel Novais to bear his own costs.

---