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 on Form 10-QSB, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, of The First Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Johnson, the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 Section 15(d) 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/ David E. JohnsonName:

David E. JohnsonTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

November 10, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The First Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The First
Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Joseph RAMENTOL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-586.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 8, 1971.

Antinori, Cazin, Cohen & Thury, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Petition for Rehearing directed to this Court’s Order quashing the order of the trial court denying bail pending appeal is denied.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.

MANN, J., concurs specially.

MANN, Judge

(specially concurring).

I would attach conditions to the denial to insure that this appeal is accelerated and promptly disposed of. However, the conditions are unnecessary, and if the State is so concerned as it says about time being of the essence, I would suggest that it ask the trial court to accelerate the times normally allowed so that the matter can be concluded within the next few days. We are certainly not disposed to delay an investigation into a homicide. But I must point out that the trial court has authority under F.A.R. 3.8, 32 F.S.A. to supervise the *“fixing*or extension of time” within which things must be done. This court can do the same on proper notice if the trial court won’t. F.A.R. 3.6j (2) provides specifically that the times specified “may be *reduced*or enlarged as provided in Rule 3.8.” This court can dispense with oral argument pursuant to F.A.R. 3.10e, and should do so. F.A.R. 3.12 allows us, on our own motion or that of a party, to accelerate the cause for final hearing.

The question raised is a simple, but reasonably arguable, one. We granted bail pending appeal because the sentence for contempt would have been served prior to decision in the normal course of events, rendering any victory the appellant might obtain here a hollow one. But a month has now elapsed since the original order appealed from. Had the rules been utilized to obtain a prompt resolution of the matter the case could be concluded by now.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15716]



[[Page 34909]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10475]


Notice of Determinations: Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition--Determinations: ``The Progressive Revolution: Modern 
Art for a New India'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``The Progressive Revolution: Modern Art for a New India,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Asia Society 
Museum, New York, New York, from on or about September 15, 2018, until 
on or about January 20, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2053454354494f4e121415196053544154450e474f56"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e2918781968b8d8cd0d6d7dba29196839687cc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-10 of July 6, 2018.

Jennifer Z. Galt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2018-15716 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Dawn R. BLISS, Appellant, v. Alonzo O. BLISS, Appellee. Alonzo O. BLISS, Appellant, v. Dawn R. BLISS, Appellee.

Nos. 71-671, 71-674, 71-694.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 23, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

Financial statement scheduleRule 12-09.

Valuation and qualifying accounts.

YEAR ENDED 6/30/01

|                                |  |   |           | Column CAdditions |   |         |  |  
|------------------------------- |  | - | --------- | ------------------ | - | ------- |  | -
|
|
|Allowance for doubtful accounts |  | $ | 2,046,015 |                    | $ | 512,363 |  | $

YEAR ENDED 6/30/02

|                                |  |   |           | Column CAdditions |   |         |  |  
|------------------------------- |  | - | --------- | ------------------ | - | ------- |  | -
|
|
|Allowance for doubtful accounts |  | $ | 1,050,000 |                    | $ | 200,000 |  | $

YEAR ENDED 6/30/03

|                                |  |   |           | Column CAdditions |   |         |  |  
|------------------------------- |  | - | --------- | ------------------ | - | ------- |  | -
|
|
|Allowance for doubtful accounts |  | $ | 1,250,000 |                    | $ | 672,000 |  | $

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1331 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1331

    To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 2013

 Mr. Baucus (for himself and Mr. Hatch) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF GENERALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES.

    Section 505 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2465) is amended by 
striking ``July 31, 2013'' and inserting ``September 30, 2015''.

SEC. 2. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

    Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``October 22, 2021'' 
        and inserting ``January 21, 2022''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``October 29, 
        2021'' and inserting ``January 28, 2022''.

SEC. 3. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

    Notwithstanding section 6655 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
in the case of a corporation with assets of not less than 
$1,000,000,000 (determined as of the end of the preceding taxable 
year)--
            (1) the amount of any required installment of corporate 
        estimated tax which is otherwise due in July, August, or 
        September of 2018 shall be increased by 1.25 percent of such 
        amount (determined without regard to any increase in such 
        amount not contained in such Code); and
            (2) the amount of the next required installment after an 
        installment referred to in paragraph (1) shall be appropriately 
        reduced to reflect the amount of the increase by reason of such 
        paragraph.
                                 <all>
```
#### Charles HAGOPIAN, Appellant, v. DON ALLEN CHEVROLET, INC., Appellee.

No. 71-1025.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.1 - CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard M. Feldt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Evergreen Solar, Inc.;

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) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238, 34-47986, 33-8392
and 34-49313]

(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 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 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 controls over
financial reporting.

Date: November 12, 2004

                                        /s/ Richard M. Feldt
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard M. Feldt
                                        Chief Executive Officer
# C_2022463EN.01003401.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR)

(Case T-537/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BODY STAR - Earlier EU word mark Bodyguard - Earlier national word mark Bodyguard - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 463/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: bett1.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Joined Cases R 1711/2020-2 and R 1727/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Joined Cases R 1711/2020-2 et R 1727/2020-2) as regards ‘mattresses; mattress toppers; beds; bed frames; slatted bases for beds; bedding except linen; cushions; pillows; neck-supporting pillows; waterbeds, not for medical purposes; air mattresses’ in Class 20 and ‘bed blankets; bed linen and blankets; ticks [mattress covers]; mattress covers; ticks (mattress and pillow coverings); sleeping bags’ in Class 24; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Joined Cases R 1711/2020-2 et R 1727/2020-2) as regards ‘mattresses; mattress toppers; beds; bed frames; slatted bases for beds; bedding except linen; cushions; pillows; neck-supporting pillows; waterbeds, not for medical purposes; air mattresses’ in Class 20 and ‘bed blankets; bed linen and blankets; ticks [mattress covers]; mattress covers; ticks (mattress and pillow coverings); sleeping bags’ in Class 24;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
# C_2022257EN.01003301.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2022 — Bodegas Beronia v EUIPO — Bodegas Carlos Serres (ALEGRA DE BERONIA)

(Case T-298/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ALEGRA DE BERONIA - Earlier national word mark ALEGRO - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(5)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 257/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Beronia (Ollauri, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bodegas Carlos Serres, SL (Haro, Spain) (represented by: F. Pérez Álvarez and J. Pérez Itarte, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2021 (Case R 2013/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Carlos Serres and Bodegas Beronia.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2021 (Case R 2013/2020-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2021 (Case R 2013/2020-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as pay half of the costs of Bodegas Beronia, SA, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as pay half of the costs of Bodegas Beronia, SA, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

| 3. | Orders Bodegas Carlos Serres, SL, to bear its own costs as well as pay half the costs of Bodegas Beronia, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Bodegas Carlos Serres, SL, to bear its own costs as well as pay half the costs of Bodegas Beronia, including half the costs necessarily incurred by them for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
Exhibit 99.1





Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of TransMontaigne Inc. (the Company), each hereby certifies that on the date hereof:





(a)

the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)

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





/s/  DONALD H. ANDERSON Donald H. Anderson President, Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Operating Officer and Vice Chairman September 26, 2002/s/  HAROLD R. LOGAN, JR. Harold R. Logan, Jr. Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer September 26, 2002
#### VILLAGE OF PALM SPRINGS, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. RETIREMENT BUILDERS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellee.

No. 72-589.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 13, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 MangoSoft, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Selig Zises, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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 results of operations of the Company.





By:
                  /s/Selig
    ZisesInterim
      Chief Executive OfficerAugust
      14, 2009




This
certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to
the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 12.1  



                          NORDSTROM CREDIT, INC.
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings Available for            
                        Fixed Charges to Fixed Charges
                           (Dollars in thousands)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Year ended January 31,               1997     1996     1995     1994     1993
----------------------            -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
<S>                               <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>    
Earnings before 
income taxes                      $47,024  $35,086  $32,045  $32,372  $29,321

Fixed charges 
  (gross interest expense)         41,089   42,245   31,187   29,600   33,841
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------

Earnings available for
  fixed charges                   $88,113  $77,331  $63,232  $61,972  $63,162
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======  =======

Ratio of earnings available
  for fixed charges to fixed
  charges                            2.14     1.83     2.03     2.09     1.87
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======  =======



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Mary Ann Turner, Petitioner, v Ruben Franco, as Chair of the New York City Housing Authority, et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 935]

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority dated February 7, 1995, which terminated petitioner’s tenancy on the ground of nondesirability, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the penalty of termination and remand the matter to respondent for imposition of a lesser penalty, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Diane Lebedeff, JJ, entered February 13,1996), is otherwise disposed of by confirming the remainder of the determination, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings. However, the penalty of dismissal shocks our sense of fairness, inasmuch as petitioner, who had lived in the apartment for approximately 13 years at the time of the hearing, has been a long-time patient at a psychiatric hospital under treatment for long-term chronic schizophrenia, paranoid type, for which she takes two medications, and which, according to her psychiatrist, renders her delusional and unable to live in a homeless shelter or other group environment; petitioner’s son, Timothy, now living in the apartment with respondent’s permission, is also a psychiatric patient suffering from the same ailment; and there is no evidence that either petitioner or Timothy committed any other nondesirable acts before or after this incident *(see, Matter of Cheek v Hernandez-Pinero,*198 AD2d 106, *lv denied*84 NY2d 801; *Matter of Dickerson v Popolizio,*168 AD2d 336). We have considered petitioner’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.