alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of Rainbow Coral Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Patrick Brown, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  August 14, 2012/s/ Patrick BrownPatrick Brown, President,Principal Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial and Accounting officer  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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
252 La. 827

#### George SOULÉ et al. v. Wade O. MARTIN, Jr., Secretary of State.

No. 49514.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1968.

In re: George Soulé et al. applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Luther F. Cole Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District, Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 2nd day of October, 10:00 a. m., 1968, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent *159through his attorney shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that, in the meantime and until the further orders of this court all proceedings against the relator in said Nineteenth Judicial District Court shall be stayed and suspended.

Granted with stay order.
#### Frederick MAYER, as Executor of the Estate of Arthur S. Kahn, Deceased, Appellant, v. WESTVIEW COUNTRY CLUB, a Florida corporation not for profit, Appellee.

No. 72-213.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 12, 1972.

Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick, and George B. Foss, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Richard L. Lapidus, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s decedent joined the ap-pellee country club and agreed to purchase three bonds issued by the country club as part of his membership obligation. The bonds, totalling $1600 in face value, were apparently delivered to the estate in exchange for appellant’s later payment of $1513.70 in fulfillment of a claim against the estate. By instituting the instant action the estate claimed: (1) recovery of the face amount of the bonds, and (2) recovery of the purchase price because of fraud upon the estate. Upon appellee’s motion for summary judgment it appeared without genuine issue that: (1) the bonds were not payable under the terms thereof; (2) there was a delivery of the bonds and full opportunity to examine the provisions prior to purchase. The trial court properly entered the summary final judgment.

Appellant’s contention that a provision in the bonds stating that they were *395payable only from “net earnings” to be “ascertained and declared by the Board of Directors” rendered them fraudulent as a matter of law, is not supported by any cited authority and does not appear well founded. See Kutner v. Kalish, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 763.

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-22-00122-CV

Style:

John or Jane Doe, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the State of 

Texas et al

v Texas State Conference of the NAACP et al

Date motion filed*: March 8, 2022

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions 

granted:

 0 Current Due date: 

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________________________________ 

Contrary to appellant’s request to extend the time to file appellant’s brief, no deadline 

for the filing of appellant’s brief has been set because the complete appellate record has 

not yet been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s 

motion as moot. 

Judge's signature:____/s/ Sherry Radack_______

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: _____March 15, 2022____
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3727 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3727

  To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a 
   study of, and report to the Congress on, the feasibility of using 
  biometric devices to verify the identity of persons applying for or 
 receiving aid to families with dependent children in order to reduce 
                     fraud in the welfare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 1994

Mr. Lazio (for himself, Mr. King, Mr. Levy, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Lewis of 
California, Mr. Petri, Mr. Dornan, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Walker, 
 Mr. McHugh, Mr. Armey, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Canady, Mr. Shaw, Ms. Dunn, 
   Mr. Allard, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Horn, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. 
    Gekas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a 
   study of, and report to the Congress on, the feasibility of using 
  biometric devices to verify the identity of persons applying for or 
 receiving aid to families with dependent children in order to reduce 
                     fraud in the welfare program.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY OF THE FEASIBILITY OF USING BIOMETRIC DEVICES TO 
              VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF PERSONS APPLYING FOR OR RECEIVING 
              AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN; REPORT TO THE 
              CONGRESS.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
conduct a study designed to determine--
            (1) whether it would be feasible to reduce fraud in the 
        receipt of aid to families with dependent children under any 
        State plan approved under part A of title IV of the Social 
        Security Act by using biometric devices to measure various 
        physical characteristics of the persons applying for or 
        receiving such aid in order to verify the identity of such 
        persons; and
            (2) if so, whether it would be appropriate to enter into a 
        contract with a private party or parties to perform such 
        identification.
    (b) Report to the Congress.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report 
on the results of the study required by subsection (a).

                                 <all>
```
# C_2015319EN.01000401.xml

| 26.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/4

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2015/C 319/05)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 25.8.2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 25.8.2015-31.12.2015 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Stock or Group of stocks | HKE/571214 + HKE/*8ABDE. |
| Species | Hake (Merluccius merluccius) |
| Zone | VI and VII; Union and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV + VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 39/TQ104 |

Date and time of closure

25.8.2015

Duration

25.8.2015-31.12.2015

Member State

Germany

Stock or Group of stocks

HKE/571214 + HKE/*8ABDE.

Species

Hake (Merluccius merluccius)

Merluccius merluccius

Zone

VI and VII; Union and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV + VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

39/TQ104

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
filed by Security Capital Group Incorporated on Form S-8 No's. 333-38521,
333-38523, 333-38525, 333-38527, 333-38531, 333-38533, 333-38537, 333-48167,
333-38539, 333-61395, 333-65688, 333-65704, Form S-4 No's. 333-61401 and
333-47926 and Form S-3 No. 333-64979 of our report dated January 31, 2002,
except as to note 3, which is as of March 13, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation as of December 31,
2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2001, and the related schedule, which report appears
in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Security Capital Group
Incorporated.

                                       KPMG LLP

Washington, D.C.
March 28, 2002
Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-3  (No.  333-33000,   333-94723,  333-64755,  333-64605,
333-59523,  333-57613, 333-51067, 333-45139, 333-37713, 333-25431, 333-81533 and
333-38068),  Registration  Statement  on Form  S-4 (No.  333-38420),  and in the
Registration  Statements  on Forms  S-8 (No.  333-31696,  333-93117,  333-92327,
333-11294,  333-88421 and  333-39553)  of Applied  Digital  Solutions,  Inc. and
subsidiaries  (formerly Applied Cellular  Technology,  Inc.) of our report dated
March 3, 2000  relating to the  financial  statements  and  financial  statement
schedule, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.




 /S/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
April 20, 2001
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8227

KENNETH M. LEWIS, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. STAN BURTT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (0:07-cv-00458-TLW)

Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth M. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth M. Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failing to exhaust state remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See MillerEl v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3629 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3629

 To rescind appropriations for the United States Postal Service in an 
amount equal to the amount expended by the Postal Service in the design 
             and implementation of its new corporate logo.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 1993

    Mr. Coppersmith (for himself, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Kreidler, Mr. 
  Stenholm, Mr. Fingerhut, Mr. Canady, Mr. Crane, Mr. McCandless, Mr. 
   Poshard, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Archer, Mr. Hochbrueckner, Mr. Taylor of 
Mississippi, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Lancaster, Mr. Kingston, and 
Mr. Gallegly) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To rescind appropriations for the United States Postal Service in an 
amount equal to the amount expended by the Postal Service in the design 
             and implementation of its new corporate logo.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Service Fiscal Responsibility 
Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) the decision by the United States Postal Service to 
        change its corporate logo is inconsistent with tight budgetary 
        times;
            (2) the United States Postal Service should concentrate on 
        more substantive means of improving its image among the public, 
        such as increasing the reliability of mail delivery, promoting 
        excellence in customer service, and fulfilling claims of job 
        reductions;
            (3) the Federal Government should act in a fiscally 
        responsible manner, and should eschew cheap and tawdry 
        approaches to image improvement at public expense; and
            (4) the rescission of funds provided for in this Act, which 
        will take effect only if the United States Postal Service 
        persists in its plans for a new corporate logo, is a legitimate 
        exercise of the congressional power of the purse.

SEC. 3. RESCISSION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Of the funds made available for ``POSTAL SERVICE--Payment to the 
Postal Service Fund'' in the Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
Government Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-123), $6,600,000 
shall be rescinded on January 1, 1994, unless, prior to such date, the 
Postmaster General notifies the Congress that the United States Postal 
Service will not proceed with the adoption and implementation of a new 
corporate logo.

                                 <all>
```
Form of Discretionary Bonus Unit award Letter



 Exhibit 10.15 
 Dear             : 
 Sweden
employee bonus scheme 
 I’d like to take this opportunity to thank you for the considerable time and effort that you have contributed
towards making King what it is today. 
 I’m therefore really pleased to be able to confirm to you that with effect from 2011-07-01 your
bonus will increase to             %. 
 In recognition of your hard work you
have been awarded              Discretionary Bonus Units. 
 Discretionary
Bonus Units (or “DBU’s” for short) are intended to incentivise and retain key employees at King. They will only have value if King is bought by a third party or floats on a recognised stock market for a price that is higher than a
pre-set amount. 
 The value of an award of DBU’s will be depend on: 

 

	 	(a)	The number of DBU’s awarded; and 

  

	 	(b)	The future value of the King Group on the date of floatation OR the price paid in cash in the future by a buyer of the King Group of companies (whichever is first, if
any). 

 50% of the value of any DBU’s awarded will become payable on the date that the King Group is bought (or floats). The
remaining 50% will become payable on the first anniversary of the purchase (or floatation) of the King Group. 
 No amounts will be payable if
an employee is not employed by the King Group on the relevant payment date. 
 The value of each DBU for a given purchase (or floatation) price
of the King Group is set out in the attached sheet. 
 Example A 
 On 1 October, 2011 Employee A is awarded 2,000 DBU’s. 
 On 1 November, 2012 the King
Group is bought for €125m. 
 Each DBU will be valued at €0.57 (as set out in the attached sheet). 

If Employee A has been continuously employed by King up to and including 1 November, 2012 (s)he will be paid €570 (2,000 X €0.57 X
50% = €570.00). This amount will be taxed in the same way as salary. 
 If Employee A has been continuously employed by King up to and
including 1 November 2013, (s)he will also be paid an additional €570 (2,000 X €0.57 X 50% = €570.00). This amount will be taxed in the same way as salary. 
 Total €1,140. 

  
 1 








 Example B 
 On 1 October, 2011 Employee B is awarded 3,000 DBU’s. 
 On 1 December, 2012 the King
Group is bought for €225m. 
 Each DBU will be valued at €1.37 (as set out in the attached sheet) 

If Employee B has been continuously employed by King up to and including 1 December, 2012 (s)he will be paid €2,055 (3,000 X €1.37 X 50%).
This amount will be taxed in the same way as salary. 
 If Employee B has been continuously employed by King up to and including
1 December, 2013 (s)he will also be paid ‘an additional €2,055 (3,000 X €1.37 X 50%). This amount will be taxed in the same way as salary. 
 Total €4,110. 
 I look forward to continuing to work with you at King and
helping us all make King a successful, rewarding and fun place to work. 
 Please confirm your acknowledgement of your award of Discretionary
Bonus Units by signing and dating where indicated below and returning one copy of this letter to me. 
 Best regards, 

Riccardo Zacconi. 
 Signed by: 

Date: 

  
 2
J-S20009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ARTHUR F. GUPTON 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2892 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 20, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0004847-2012

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY COLINS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2022

I am writing separately from my colleagues to state my agreement with 

the analysis of Appellant’s claim on the merits. I believe Appellant’s single 

issue was not rendered unreviewable by the multiple erroneous references to 

the denial of PCRA relief in the brief. The issue briefed on appeal is the 

propriety of Appellant’s SVP designation and registration and reporting 

requirements under Subchapter I of SORNA, and not any hypothetical PCRA 

ruling. The timely-filed notice of appeal refers to the April 20, 2022 judgement 

of sentence following the remand hearing, and the Rule 1925(b) Statement 

includes the issue briefed, albeit not with ideal clarity. 

Although reviewable, Appellant’s argument is meritless. He asks this 

Court to follow the trial court ruling in Commonwealth v. Torsilieri, CP-CR-

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29040-23

- 2 -

0001570-2016 (Chester Cty. Ct. Com. Pl. Aug. 23, 2022) (vacated and under 

review before the Supreme Court at Docket No. 97 MAP 2022), rather than 

our Supreme Court’s directly applicable holdings in Commonwealth v. 

Butler, 226 A.3d 972 (Pa. 2020) (Butler II), or Commonwealth v. 

Lacombe, 234 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2020). Appellant’s suggestion is both 

impermissible for an intermediate appellate court, and unpersuasive even in 

theory. The scope of the court of common pleas opinion in Torsilieri was 

limited to Subchapter H, whereas Appellant comes under Subchapter I. It is 

therefore inapplicable to him.

I agree that the trial court did not err in applying the Supreme Court’s 

most recent decisions in Butler II and Lacombe.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,146
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                        57
<INVENTORY>                                        395
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,341
<PP&E>                                          77,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,562
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,584
<SALES>                                         37,422
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,422
<CGS>                                           23,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,889
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,185
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,704
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,704
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>