alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                  ------------
         Section 1350 Certifications of Principal Executive Officer and
                           Principal Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of 1st Independence
Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2008 (the  "Report") of the Company  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
section  13(a)  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.



Dated: May 6, 2008              /s/ N. William White
                                --------------------------------
                                Name:     N. William White
                                Title:    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)


                                /s/ R. Michael Wilbourn
                                --------------------------------
                                Name:     R. Michael Wilbourn
                                Title:    Executive Vice President
                                          and Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)
On Monday, February 25, 2013, at approximately 1:45pm, Congressman Luis Gutierrez called Secretary Ray LaHood to express general concerns with respect to SJU’s application to participate in the FAA’s Airport Privatization Pilot Program:

• He requested a careful review of the application in a manner that protects Puerto Rico’s public interest.

Secretary LaHood noted that the FAA is currently reviewing the SJU application

and was aware of the concerns expressed by the Congressman. The Secretary stated that the FAA was reviewing the application and would render a decision on the application shortly.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Masakazu Kurushima, in my capacity as the President and Chief Executive Officer of California Steel Industries,
Inc., for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005, filed by California Steel Industries, Inc., on March 27, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in such annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of California Steel Industries, Inc.

Dated: March 27, 2006



By:

/s/ Masakazu KurushimaMasakazu Kurushima, President and Chief Executive
Officer
257 La. 451

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Wilbur Fred LEWIS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51099.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1971.

In re: Wilbur Fred Lewis applying for writ of habeas corpus and remedial writs.

Writ refused. Applicant is not entitled to the relief prayed for.
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 COMC, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
Janice B. Fuellhart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, that to
the best of my knowledge:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


/s/ Janice B. Fuellhart
-----------------------------
Janice B. Fuellhart
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
April 16, 2003




_______________________

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO COMC, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY COMC, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.



<PAGE>


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


In connection with the Annual Report of COMC, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
Marc Dell'Immagine, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, that to the best of my knowledge:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


/s/ Marc Dell'Immagine
------------------------
Name: Marc Dell'Immagine
Controller and Principal Accounting Officer
April 16, 2003



_______________________

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO COMC, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY COMC, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### JOSEPH SIRMAN for the use of GEORGE TUNNEL vs. ANN C. BARNARD, adm’x. of DERICK BERNARD.

Notice of the execution of a rule of reference must be given to the opposite *party*and not to the attorney.

Rule to show cause why an award should not be set aside on the ground that no notice of the meeting of the arbitrators was given to the defendant. The reference specified that the rule might be executed exporte on ten days notice. It was admitted that notice had not been served on the deft, but on her counsel. Mrs. Bernard resides in the county.

Rule absolute, *(a)*

(a)

**See *Cazier*vs. *Blackstock,*ante 362.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2535

HENRY T. SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF MARYLAND; CIRCUIT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 99-1071

HENRY T. SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF MARYLAND; CIRCUIT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 99-1345

HENRY T. SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
* Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this

case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994).

2

versus

THE STATE OF MARYLAND; CIRCUIT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge;

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-98-2387-PJM)

Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 18, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ,* Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Nos. 98-2535 and 99-1345 affirmed and No. 99-1071 dismissed by

unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry T. Sanders, Landover, Maryland, Appellant Pro Se. Maureen

Mullen Dove, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Henry T. Sanders appeals three district orders: (1) the denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 1998) (No. 98-

2535), (2) the issuance of an order to show cause why Sanders

should not be sanctioned (No. 99-1071), and (3) the denial of

Defendants’ motion for sanctions (No. 99-1345). We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, in No. 98-2535, we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

See Sanders v. Maryland, No. CA-98-2387-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 24, 1998).

We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis in No. 99-1071 but

dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. Finally, we affirm the denial

of Defendants’ motion for sanctions in No. 99-1345 on the reasoning

of the district court. See Sanders v. Maryland, No. CA-98-2387-PJM

(D. Md. Feb. 25, 1999). We also deny all of Sanders’ outstanding

motions, including his motions for a stay, general relief, an

injunction, sanctions, settlement alternatives, restoration to the

argument calendar, alternatives, an interim stay, ex parte interlocutory relief, affirmative relief, mandate, expedition of appeal,

writ of habeas corpus, transfer, judgment on counter and crossclaims, dismissal, evidentiary hearing, a show cause order, leave

to file a memorandum, and default. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
4

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

Nos. 98-2535, 99-1345 - AFFIRMED

No. 99-1071 - DISMISSED
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
  
    
    The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the
period ended January 31, 2010, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
    
    The information contained in such report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Company.
  /s/ Robert A. VirtueRobert A. VirtuePresident, Chief Executive Officerand Chairman of the Board(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Robert E. DoseVice President  Finance, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
Order entered December 5, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01527-CR

JOSE RAMON CRUZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-24443-Q

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

On August 29, 2017, we abated this appeal and ordered the trial court to conduct a 

hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. On November 20, 2017, we 

received a copy of the trial court’s November 9, 2017 order. In the order, the trial court found 

that appellant wishes to prosecute the appeal but due to complicated issues presented, counsel 

needed additional time in which to file the brief. The trial court then granted counsel’s request 

for more time and ordered the brief filed by December 9, 2017.

We ADOPT the trial court’s findings that appellant wants to pursue the appeal but that 

counsel needs additional time to brief the issues. We STRIKE the trial court’s order to the 
extent it grants additional time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d) (“the appellate court may extend the 

time for filing a brief . . .”).

We ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before DECEMBER 13, 2017. Counsel is 

cautioned that the failure to file the brief by that date may result in counsel’s removal from the 

appeal without further notice.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2023278EN.01000301.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2023 — Federal Republic of Germany (C-6/21 P), Republic of Estonia (C-16/21 P) v Pharma Mar SA, European Commission

(Joined Cases C-6/21 P and C-16/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Public health - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Refusal of a marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use - Aplidin — plitidepsin - European Medicines Agency (EMA) - Impartiality of experts from a scientific advisory group (SAG) - Policy of the European Medicines Agency on the handling of competing interests of scientific committees’ members and experts - Concept of ‘pharmaceutical company’ - Scope of the exclusion for ‘research organisations’ - Concept of ‘rival products’)

(2023/C 278/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Federal Republic of Germany (C-6/21 P) (represented initially by J. Möller and S. Heimerl, and subsequently J. Möller and P.-L. Krüger, acting as Agents), Republic of Estonia (C-16/21 P) (represented by: N. Grünberg, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pharma Mar SA (represented by: M. Merola and V. Salvatore, avvocati), European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant (C-6/21 P): Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, J. Langer and C.S. Schillemans, acting as Agents), European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: S. Drosos, H. Kerr and S. Marino, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant (C-16/21 P): Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by J. Möller and S. Heimerl, and subsequently J. Möller and D. Klebs, and, lastly, J. Möller and P.-L. Krüger, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, J. Langer and C.S. Schillemans, acting as Agents), European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: S. Drosos, H. Kerr and S. Marino, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 October 2020, Pharma Mar v Commission (T 594/18, not published, EU:T:2020:512); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 October 2020, Pharma Mar v Commission (T 594/18, not published, EU:T:2020:512);

| 2. | Refers Case T 594/18 back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers Case T 594/18 back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---
#### FEINBERG MOORE, INC., and R. H. Walker, Appellants, v. Leo BARTHOLOMEW, Appellee.

No. 69-258.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 20, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
* 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 April 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10470 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SHANNON RAY LONG, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-16-2

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Shannon Ray Long has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Long has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Long’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.
# C_2022284EN.01004001.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/40

---

Order of the General Court of 2 June 2022 — Eurecna v Commission

(Case T-654/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public supply contracts - EDF - ‘Territorial strategies for innovation (TSI)’ contract - OLAF investigation - Registration in the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) database - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 284/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Eurecna SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision of 28 July 2021 to register the applicant in the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES) database, pursuant to Article 135(1) to (3) and Article 142(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Eurecna SpA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Eurecna SpA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---
#### Minerva A. VOGHT, a single woman, Appellant, v. B. A. GALLOWAY et al., Appellees.

No. 72-316.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 3, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 24.1**

 

 

**Power of Attorney**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESEPRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Harris Ravineand David Kirwan the undersigned’s true and lawful attorneys-in-fact andagents, each with full power and substitution for the undersigned and in theundersigned’s name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign FischerImaging Corporation’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-K”) and any or all amendments to theForm 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and otherdocuments in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,granting unto each of said attorneys-in-fact and agents full power andauthority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite andnecessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents andpurposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying andconfirming all that either of said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or hissubstitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtuehereto.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be executed as of this31st day of March, 2005.

 

 
|   | /s/  TODGER  ANDERSON |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | Signature                       |
|   |                            |
|   | Todger  Anderson                |
|   | Print  Name:                    |

 

----
#### SCHAEFER *v.*WOODMERE CEMETERY ASSN.

Municipal Corporations — Taxation—Action May Not be Brought por Taxes on Real Estate — Jurisdiction—Statutes.

Municipal corporation may not maintain action to recover taxes and special.assessments levied against real estate; there being no statutory authority, court is without jurisdiction in such case (1 Comp. Laws 1929, §3431, 3438).

Appeal from Wayne; Merriam (DeWitt H.), J.

Submitted October 20, 1931.

(Docket No. 153, Calendar No. 35,838.)

Decided December 8, 1931.

Rehearing denied March 3, 1932.

Assumpsit by Edwin A. Schaefer, treasurer of the city of Fordson, against Woodmere Cemetery Association, a Michigan corporation, for taxes and special assessments. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*James E. Greene,*Corporation Counsel, and *Austin & Newman,*Special Counsel, for plaintiff.

*Trowbridge, Lewis & Watkins (Edwin C. Lewis*and *Milton F. Mallender,*of counsel), for defendant.

Potter, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant in the circuit court on the common counts in assumpsit to recover from it general city taxes for the years 1926 and 1927 and parts 1 and 2 of a special assessment levied against the property for paving Riverside drive, together with interest. Defendant pleaded the general issue and gave notice the property of defendant was exempt from .taxation. There was judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We *333are met by tbe question of the right of plaintiff to maintain this suit.

“The only case provided for by statute wherein suit may be brought for unpaid taxes by the township is where taxes on personalty have been returned unpaid for want of property on which to levy. 1 Comp. Laws 1871, § 1014. In such case thé treasurer may sue in the name of the township. Taxes on real estate may be collected by distress on goods and chattels (1 Comp. Laws 1871, § 1003), but if not so collected the tax is returned unpaid and the land sold to make it.” *Staley*v. *Township of Columbus,*36 Mich. 38.1

This is still the rule. It follows the suit in question will not lie. This question was raised on the argument and it goes to the jurisdiction of the court. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

1

 See 1 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 3431, 3438.