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

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Dean Wicker, the Chief Executive Officer, President and
Chief Financial Officer of Newsearch, Inc. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY,
that:

     1.   The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
          31, 2002 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) 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.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 30th day of October, 2003.


                                   By  /s/ Dean Wicker
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                           Dean Wicker, Chief Executive Officer,
                                           President and Chief Financial Officer


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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 116

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 10, 1994

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

For the relief of Fanie Phily Mateo Angeles.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 116 RFH

1 That, notwithstanding any provision of the Immigration

2 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Fanie Phily

3 Mateo Angeles shall be held and considered to have been

4 lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent resi5 dence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon

6 payment of the required visa fee. Upon the granting of

7 permanent residence to such alien as provided for in this

8 Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer

9 to reduce by the proper number, during the current fiscal

10 year or the fiscal year next following, the total number

11 of immigrant visas which are made available to natives

12 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a)

13 of such Act, or if applicable, the total number of immi14 grant visas which are made available to natives of the

15 country of the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such

16 Act.

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

1994.

Attest: MARTHA S. POPE,

Secretary.
# C_2022073EN.01001401.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale (Italy) lodged on 22 November 2021 — E.D.L.

(Case C-699/21)

(2022/C 73/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte costituzionale

Party to the main proceedings

E.D.L.

Question referred

Must Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant, (1) examined in the light of Articles 3, 4 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, where it considers that the surrender of a person suffering from a serious chronic and potentially irreversible disease may expose that person to the risk of suffering serious harm to his or her health, the executing judicial authority must request that the issuing judicial authority provide information enabling the existence of such a risk to be ruled out, and must refuse to surrender the person in question if it does not obtain assurances to that effect within a reasonable period of time?

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 12


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                   The Gillette Company

                                                                             Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                              Nine months      Nine months
Dollars in millions                              ended            ended
                                           September 30, 2003 September 30, 2002    2002       2001       2000       1999       1998
                                             ---------------  ------------------   -----      -----      -----      -----      -----
<S>                                                   <C>               <C>       <C>       <C>         <C>        <C>         <C>
Earnings:
       Income from continuing operations
         before income taxes                $          1,452            1,261      1,752      1,342      1,288      1,912      1,656
       Interest expense                                   43               65         84        145        223        136         94
       Interest portion of rental expense                 33               30         43         31         25         20         17
       Amortization of capitalized interest                8                8         10          9          6          5          4

                                                       -----            -----      -----      -----      -----      -----      -----
       Earnings available for fixed charges $          1,536            1,364      1,889      1,527      1,542      2,073      1,771
                                                       =====            =====      =====      =====      =====      =====      =====

Fixed Charges:
       Interest expense                     $             43               65         84        145        223        136         94
       Interest capitalized                                1                3          4         11         23         13         18
       Interest portion of rental expense                 33               30         43         31         25         20         17

                                                       -----            -----      -----      -----      -----      -----      -----
       Total fixed charges                  $             77               98        131        187        271        169        129
                                                       =====            =====      =====      =====      =====      =====      =====



Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                      20.0             13.9       14.5        8.2        5.7       12.3       13.7
                                                       =====            =====      =====      =====      =====      =====      =====

</TABLE>
# C_2023179EN.01002901.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2023 — Coinbase v EUIPO — bitFlyer (coinbase)

(Case T-366/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark coinbase - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 179/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coinbase, Inc. (Oakland, California, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: bitFlyer Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 April 2021 (Case R 1751/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 April 2021 (Case R 1751/2020-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 April 2021 (Case R 1751/2020-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATION


I, Charles W. Cramb, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Gillette Company;

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(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 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) [intentionally omitted]

(c) 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; and

(d) 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 fiscal 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(s) 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 the 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date:  April 29, 2004

                                           /s/ Charles W. Cramb
                                           ____________________________________
                                           Charles W. Cramb
                                           Senior Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer
2.2.3 U.S. Departmen t of Inte rior, National Park Service

2.2.3.1 Comment Letter

D-29D-30D-31D-32D-33D-34D-35D-36D-37D-38D-39D-40D-41D-42D-43D-44
#### H. G. H. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. ADOBE BRICK AND SUPPLY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-1277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2022037EN.01000603.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/6

---

Appeal brought on 19 August 2021 by DI against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 9 June 2021 in Case T-514/19, DI v BCE

(Case C-513/21 P)

(2022/C 37/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: DI (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | by consequence grant the appellant’s requests:





  — | the annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB dated 7 May 2019 imposing the disciplinary dismissal without notice; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

—

the annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB dated 7 May 2019 imposing the disciplinary dismissal without notice;

| — | the annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB dated 25 June 2019 refusing to reopen the disciplinary proceedings further to the closure of criminal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

the annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB dated 25 June 2019 refusing to reopen the disciplinary proceedings further to the closure of criminal proceedings;

| — | in any case, the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the appellant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 Euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any case, the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the appellant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 Euros;

| — | the reimbursement of all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

the reimbursement of all the costs.

| — | order the ECB to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay all the costs of both the appeal and of the first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgement under appeal erred in law in rejecting the first plea alleging lack of competence of the author of the contested measures.

The judgement under appeal erred in law in rejecting the second plea alleging infringement of Article 8.3.2 of the Staff Rules and of the principle of legal certainty.

The judgement under appeal erred in law in rejecting the seventh plea alleging infringement of the right to the presumption of innocence and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The judgement under appeal erred in law in rejecting the fourth plea alleging infringement of Article 8.3.7 of the Staff Rules and infringement of the principle of impartiality as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter.

The judgement under appeal erred in law in rejecting the sixth plea alleging manifest errors of assessment.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1128 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1128

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the burial in 
    cemeteries of the National Cemetery System of certain deceased 
                              Reservists.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 17 (legislative day, June 15), 1993

Mr. Akaka (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. 
    Shelby) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the burial in 
    cemeteries of the National Cemetery System of certain deceased 
                              Reservists.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF RESERVISTS FOR BURIAL IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES.

    (a) Eligibility for Burial.--Section 2402 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs 
        (6) and (7), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
        paragraph (5):
            ``(5) Any member or former member of the Armed Forces who 
        has performed at least 20 years of service computed under 
        section 1332 of title 10 under honorable conditions as 
        determined by the Secretary concerned.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2306(a)(4) of such title is 
amended by striking out ``2402(5)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
``2402(6)''.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2023071EN.01001301.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 12 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — ‘MS Konsultanti’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-359/21) (1)

(Removal from the Register)

(2023/C 71/15)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘MS Konsultanti’ SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the order

Case C-359/21 is removed from the Register of the Court.

---

(1)  Date of filing: 8.6.2021

---
# C_2021217EN.01003201.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 12 April 2021 — RAIFFEISEN LEASING, trgovina in leasing d. o. o. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-235/21)

(2021/C 217/43)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: RAIFFEISEN LEASING, trgovina in leasing d. o. o.

Respondent: Republika Slovenija

Questions referred

| 1. | May a written agreement be regarded as an invoice, for the purposes of Article 203 of the VAT Directive, (1) only if it contains all of the information that is required to be set out in an invoice in accordance with Chapter 3 (‘Invoicing’) [of Title XI] of the VAT Directive?
  In the event that that question is answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

May a written agreement be regarded as an invoice, for the purposes of Article 203 of the VAT Directive, (1) only if it contains all of the information that is required to be set out in an invoice in accordance with Chapter 3 (‘Invoicing’) [of Title XI] of the VAT Directive?

In the event that that question is answered in the negative:

| 2. | On the basis of what information and circumstances may a written agreement in any event be regarded (also) as an invoice giving rise to an obligation to pay VAT within the meaning of Article 203 of the VAT Directive?
  More specifically: |
| --- | --- |

2.

On the basis of what information and circumstances may a written agreement in any event be regarded (also) as an invoice giving rise to an obligation to pay VAT within the meaning of Article 203 of the VAT Directive?

More specifically:

| 3. | May a written agreement, concluded by two taxable persons subject to VAT and concerning the supply of goods or services, be regarded as an invoice within the meaning of Article 203 of the VAT Directive if it evidences an express and objectively identifiable intention on the part of the seller or the provider of services, as a contracting party, to issue an invoice for a specific transaction, such that the purchaser could reasonably assume that it had, on the basis thereof, a right to deduct the input VAT paid? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May a written agreement, concluded by two taxable persons subject to VAT and concerning the supply of goods or services, be regarded as an invoice within the meaning of Article 203 of the VAT Directive if it evidences an express and objectively identifiable intention on the part of the seller or the provider of services, as a contracting party, to issue an invoice for a specific transaction, such that the purchaser could reasonably assume that it had, on the basis thereof, a right to deduct the input VAT paid?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
#### Dorothy RHOADES et al., Appellants, v. Nelan J. SWEET, in his official capacity as Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1076.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 17, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1973.

Max P. Engel and David B. Javits, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Lionel Barnet, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were petitioners in a mandamus proceeding in the circuit court. The circuit judge denied the petition for a writ of mandamus and this appeal followed. The appellants have failed to show error because mandamus is a discretionary writ which will issue only upon the showing of a clear legal right in the relator to the performance of a ministerial act. See State ex rel. Eichenbaum v. Cochran, Fla.1959, 114 So.2d 797. See also State ex rel. Long v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515, 164 So. 199 (1935).

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,366,277
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      190
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     47,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,414,252
<PP&E>                                       1,364,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                 366,598
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,287,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          884,425
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,780
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,387,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,287,078
<SALES>                                           (115)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  (115)
<CGS>                                           51,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  991,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (991,431)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (991,431)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07)


</TABLE>
No. 10642.

#### Herbster *v.*Stang et al.

Decided January 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court *459of Ottawa county.

*Mr. Lawrence Harmon*and *Mr. Scott Stahl,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. B. Starbird*and *Mr. W. LI. A. Redd,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Spear, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
#### In re ESTATE of Robert B. EHRMAN, a/k/a Robert Biggs Ehrman.

No. 38937.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 223 So.2d 353.