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
of Dethrone Royalty Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2013 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Johan M. (Thijs) Spoor, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|December 31, 2013 | By: | /s/ Toby McBride                                                            
|----------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |     | Toby McBride                                                                
|                  |     | Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer                           
|                  |     | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer)
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed December 22, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D19-1252

Lower Tribunal No. 16-32717

________________

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 

Appellant,

vs.

Jorge Llovet, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. 

Miller, Judge.

León Cosgrove, LLP, and Derek E. León, Andrew B. Boese, and John 

R. Byrne, for appellant.

Jacobs Legal, PLLC, and Bruce Jacobs, for appellee Jorge Llovet.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a non-party to the litigation below, seeks 

review of the denial of its motion for a protective order from post-judgment 

discovery pursuant to a subpoena. In a companion proceeding before this 

Court, stemming from the same case, and involving the same parties, 

lawyers, and issue, but a different subpoena, we reversed an order denying 

JPMorgan Chase’s motion for a protective order since “Llovet is barred from 

re-opening discovery post-judgment because the discovery he now seeks 

could have been requested pre-judgment.” JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. 

Llovet, No. 3D19-1118, 2021 WL 5347435, at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 17, 

2021). For the same reason, we reverse the order under review and remand 

for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 25, 2020

No. 04-19-00788-CR

Frank Coty FALZON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR3240

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. We ORDER appellant to file his 

brief on or before April 24, 2020. No further extensions will be granted.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Claudia Kristine Esquivel v

. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00301

- CR

Trial court case number: 14CR1878

Trial court: 212 th District Court of Ga lveston County

Date motion filed: October 16 , 2017

Party filing motion: Appellant

A ppellant’s motion for this court to publish its September 7, 2017 opinion in this case is

DENIED.

Judge’s signature: / s/ Michael Massengale

Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Keyes, and Massengale

Date: January 25, 2018
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Century Acquisition  Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Rozelle, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.








Date: November 23, 2010





/s/ Joseph RozelleJoseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)











The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### James REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-797.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 11, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64799-64800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26054]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

DOE/NSF High Energy Physics Advisory Panel

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF High Energy 
Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 
92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be 
announced in the Federal Register.

[[Page 64800]]

DATES: Wednesday, December 5, 2012; 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.; and Thursday, 
December 6, 2012; 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Double Tree Hotel, 8120 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kogut, Executive Secretary; High 
Energy Physics Advisory Panel; U.S. Department of Energy; SC-25/
Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-1298.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance on a continuing 
basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation 
on scientific priorities within the field of high energy physics 
research.
    Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 and Thursday, December 6, 2012

     Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics 
Program
     Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary 
Particle Physics Program
     Reports on and Discussions of Topics of General Interest 
in High Energy Physics
     Public Comment (10-minute rule)
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you 
would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do 
so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral 
statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should 
contact John Kogut, 301-903-1298 or by email at: 
John.Kogut@science.doe.gov. You must make your request for an oral 
statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable 
provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the 
agenda. The Chairperson of the Panel will conduct the meeting to 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow 
the 10-minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available on the U.S. 
Department of Energy's Office of High Energy Physics Advisory Panel Web 
site at: http://science.energy.gov/hep/hepap/meetings/.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 17, 2012.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-26054 Filed 10-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6495

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY JONES, a/k/a Spunk,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00099-FL-1; 5:19-cv-00022-FL)

Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019 

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Jones’ motions for leave to 

amend his informal brief and to supplement the record, 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 this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 43956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18541]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration


Transit Advisory Committee for Safety; Re-Establishment of 
Charter

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of re-establishment of Transit Advisory Committee for 
Safety.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the re-
establishment of the Transit Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS) via 
a new charter. TRACS is a Federal Advisory Committee established by the 
U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) in accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide information, advice and 
recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of FTA on 
matters relating to the safety of public transportation systems. This 
charter will be effective for two years from the date it is filed with 
Congress.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henrika Buchanan, TRACS Designated 
Federal Officer, Acting Associate Administrator, FTA Office of Transit 
Safety and Oversight, (202) 366-4020; or Adrianne Malasky, FTA Office 
of Transit Safety and Oversight, (202) 366-1783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is provided in accordance with 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2). 
Please see the TRACS website for additional information at https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/transit-advisory-committee-safety-tracs.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
K. Jane Williams,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-18541 Filed 8-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Marvin Dendy, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 31, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

After a hearing, an arbitrator found that claimant and other banquet waiters employed by a hotel had stolen wallets provided as banquet favors for distribution to guests. The Administrative Law Judge, holding that he was bound by the arbitrator’s finding, then ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because such behavior constituted misconduct; the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this decision. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by the arbitrator’s findings of fact, i.e., that claimant stole the wallets that were found in his locker *(see, Matter of Ranni [Ross],*58 NY2d 715, 717-718). The record therefore contains substantial evidence to support the decision that this behavior amounted to misconduct *(see, Matter of Sylvester [Hartnett],*143 AD2d 478).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.
*


*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* Information has been Redacted in accordance with the two principled exceptions of 

the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act (FATAA) of 2016; including 

the health and security of implementing partners, as well as national interest of the 

United States.
Carlos



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 7, 2013

N o. 04

- 11

- 00550

- CV

BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

Carlos M. ZAFFIRINI , Sr., Dolores Angelina De la Garza, Clarissa De La Garza, Cristina

Lorena Benavides, Servando Roberto Benavides, Delia Hilda Benavides Martinez, Maria

Eugenia Benavides Gutierrez, Las Tinajas Minerals, Ltd, Diana Solis,

Appellee/s

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CVF000798D1

The Hono rable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered Appellees’ motion for rehearing; the motion is DENIED. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.3.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

c ourt on this 7th day of November, 2013

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 411

To prohibit a State from imposing an income tax on the pension income

of individuals who are not residents or domiciliaries of that State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. STUMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit a State from imposing an income tax on the

pension income of individuals who are not residents or

domiciliaries of that State.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON STATE TAXATION OF PENSION

4 INCOME.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 4 of title 4 of the United

6 States Code is amended by adding at the end thereof the

7 following new section:
2

HR 411 IH

1 ‘‘§ 114. Limitation on State income taxation of pen2 sion income

3 ‘‘(a) No State may impose an income tax (as defined

4 in section 110(c)) on the pension income of any individual

5 who is not a resident or domiciliary of such State.

6 ‘‘(b) For purposes of subsection (a), the term ‘State’

7 includes any political subdivision of a State, the District

8 of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.’’.

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

10 for such chapter 4 is amended by adding at the end there11 of the following new item:

‘‘114. Limitation on State income taxation of pension income.’’

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

14 December 31, 1993.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________ HAMID AL RAZAK, et al., : : Petitioner, : : v. : Civil Action No. 05-1601 (GK) : BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., : : Respondents. : ______________________________: ORDER A Joint Status Report [Dkt. No. 188] was filed in this case on March 2, 2009. Upon consideration of the representations of the parties, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED , that, consistent with the wishes of the Petitioner, habeas corpus litigation will proceed under the guidelines prescribed by the Court’s Case Management Order #3 (“CMO”), as modified herein; and it is further ORDERED , that Respondents have until March 20, 2009 , to submit any revision of their legal justification for detention; and it is further ORDERED , that by no later than 5:00 p.m., March 13, 2009 , parties shall submit a brief containing their position as to the ap p r o p r i a t e d e f i n i t i o n o f " e n e m yc o mb a t a n t . " P a r t i e s a r e also required to indicate what, if any, response they have to footnote one of the recent Court of Appeals decision in Ki y e mb a v. Obama, No. 08-5424, slip op. at 3 n.1 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 18, 2009); and it is further-2-

ORDERED , that Respondents have until April 1, 2009 , to comply with their obligations under §§ I.D.1 and I.E.1 of the CMO; and it is further ORDERED , that Petitioner must file his traverse within 30 days of the date on which Respondents certify their compliance with § I.D.1 of the CMO; and it is further ORDERED , that motions for judgment under § III.A.1 of the CMO are due within 14 da y s o f the completion of all discovery , as provided for in §§ I.D.1, I.E.1, and I.E.2.

/ s / March 4, 2009 Gladys Kessler United States District Judge

Copies to: Attorneys of Record via ECF
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1757

WILLIE FRANK JAMES, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS LLC,

 Defendant - Appellee,

and

DAN FAKETTY; JENNIFER POWERS,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:18-cv-01031-RMG-MHC)

Submitted: November 23, 2021 Decided: November 29, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Frank James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David S. Shankman, SHANKMAN LEONE 

PA, Tampa, Florida, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Frank James, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and 

denying in part Southeastern Grocers LLC’s motion for summary judgment. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory 

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order James seeks to appeal is neither a 

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-2491

JAMES CRUZ,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Respondent, Appellee.

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. David M. Cohen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

Before

 Torruella, Circuit Judge,

 Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Howard, Circuit Judge.

James Cruz on brief pro se.

Margaret D. McGaughey, Appellate Chief, and Paula D. Silsby,

United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

January 14, 2003
-2-

Per Curiam. James Cruz appeals from the district

court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to set

aside his sentence following his jury-trial convictions for

conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and

846, along with various firearm possession violations. We have

reviewed the record, the briefs of the parties, and the

applicable law, and we discern no reversible error. 

Because neither Cruz's sentence of imprisonment nor

term of supervised release exceeded the applicable default

statutory maximum, there was no violation of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See United States v. CortesClaudio, 2002 WL 31681895 at *1 (1st Cir. Dec. 2, 2002). There

being no Apprendi violation, the question of the retroactive

application of Apprendi becomes unnecessary to resolve here.

Similarly rendered moot is the third issue on which a COA was

granted -- whether Cruz can establish cause and prejudice to

overcome his procedural default of the Apprendi issue.

The district court's judgment denying Cruz's section

2255 motion is AFFIRMED.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 540 

To designate the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, New 

Hampshire, as the ‘‘Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2013 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To designate the air route traffic control center located in 

Nashua, New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Patricia Clark Boston 

Air Route Traffic Control Center’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF PATRICIA CLARK BOSTON 

4 AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The air route traffic control cen6 ter located in Nashua, New Hampshire, and any successor 

7 air route traffic control center at that location, shall be 

8 known and designated as the ‘‘Patricia Clark Boston Air 

9 Route Traffic Control Center’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 540 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the air route traffic control center referred to 

4 in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

5 ‘‘Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Cen6 ter’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS