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


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


         I, Eric R. Thatcher, Chief Executive Officer of MailTec, Inc. ("the
"Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbananes- Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the period ending December 31, 2006 for the Registrant, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

         (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.


     Date: February , 2007                /s/ Eric R. Thatcher
                                          Eric R. Thatcher
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          And Principal Accounting Officer



*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 will be
retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.2

                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 on Form 10-K of Bremer Financial
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2003 (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Stan K. Dardis , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.         The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section
           13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
           or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  March 21, 2003                        /s/Stan K. Dardis
---------------------                ---------------------------------
                                              Stan K. Dardis
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              Bremer Financial Corporationr
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,838,254
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,838,132)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       122
<SALES>                                         12,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,766
<CGS>                                            6,207
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,840)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,840)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,840)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Steven R. PRESTASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LEADVILLE and records custodian; Fred H. Van Pelt, Chief of the Leadville Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 84CA0822.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Sept. 12, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1985.

Certiorari Denied (Prestash) March 10, 1986.

Steven R. Prestash, pro se.

Cosgriff, Dunn & Berry, Timothy H. Berry, Leadville, for defendants-appellees.

METZGER, Judge.

Steven R. Prestash appeals *pro se*from the order of the trial court granting him only partial access to certain investigatory records of the Leadville Police Department in accordance with the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, § 24-72-301 et seq., C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 10). We affirm.

On February 1, 1984, Prestash delivered a letter to the Leadville Police Department requesting disclosure of “all and any documents, records, tapes, or testimony in which Linda and Doyle Darley have mentioned my name or referred to my person.” The chief of police, by letter dated the same date, responded by informing Pres-tash that his request had been referred to the district and city attorneys for action. On February 6, the Leadville City Attorney by letter declined the request “on the grounds that such inspection would be contrary to the public interest because the *1273requested information constitutes ‘intelligence’ information and, further, that the requested information is part of an ongoing investigation.”

On March 6, 1984, Prestash filed an application with the district court pursuant to § 24-72-305, C.R.S. (1982 Rep.Vol. 10) seeking an order directing disclosure of the records. At a hearing held April 6, 1984, the trial court determined the only material pertinent to Prestash’s request was an audio tape of a police interview with the Dar-leys and related incident reports. Following an *in camera*review of the tape out of the presence of the parties, counsel, and witnesses, the court ordered that Prestash was only entitled to a written transcript of those portions of the tape relating to him but excised of references to any other person.

Prestash contends the court erred in failing to permit full access to the tape. We do not agree.

The court found that the tape can reasonably be classified as “police intelligence made upon volunteered information concerning drug usage and trafficking,” and that the informants’ statements thus became the basis for an internal police investigation. The court further found that the police had a legitimate interest in avoiding disclosure of investigations of potential criminal conduct not ripe for prosecution.

Section 24-72-305(5), C.R.S. (1982 Repl. Vol. 10) expressly exempts disclosure of police intelligence information or police investigatory files. The district court’s findings are fully supported by the record, and the court properly denied Prestash’s request for complete disclosure of the tape.

We have reviewed Prestash’s other numerous allegations of error and find them to be without merit.

Order affirmed.

BERMAN and TURSI, JJ., concur.
# Amtsblatt C 210A/25.

| | ISSN 1977-088X |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 210A |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 65. Jahrgang25. Mai 2022 |

ISSN 1977-088X

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 210A

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

65. Jahrgang25. Mai 2022

---

| Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- |
| | Berichtigungen |
| 2022/C 210 A/01 | Berichtigung der Bekanntmachung Gemeinsames Unternehmen für ein kreislauforientiertes biobasiertes Europa (BBI) — Ausschreibung der Stelle eines Exekutivdirektors (m/w/d) (Bedienstete/r auf Zeit — Besoldungsgruppe AD 14) — COM/2022/20077 ( ABl. C 206 A vom 23.5.2022 ) | 1 |

Inhalt

Seite

Berichtigungen

2022/C 210 A/01

Berichtigung der Bekanntmachung Gemeinsames Unternehmen für ein kreislauforientiertes biobasiertes Europa (BBI) — Ausschreibung der Stelle eines Exekutivdirektors (m/w/d) (Bedienstete/r auf Zeit — Besoldungsgruppe AD 14) — COM/2022/20077 ( ABl. C 206 A vom 23.5.2022 )

( ABl. C 206 A vom 23.5.2022 )

1

---

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

Berichtigungen

| 25.5.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 210/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 210/1

---

Berichtigung der Bekanntmachung Gemeinsames Unternehmen für ein kreislauforientiertes biobasiertes Europa (BBI) — Ausschreibung der Stelle eines Exekutivdirektors (m/w/d) (Bedienstete/r auf Zeit — Besoldungsgruppe AD 14) — COM/2022/20077

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 206 A vom 23. Mai 2022
  )

(2022/C 210 A/01)

Seite 5, „Bewerbungsschluss“, erster Absatz:

| Anstatt: | „Bewerbungsschluss ist der 13. Juni 2022, 12.00 Uhr (mittags), Brüsseler Zeit. Danach ist keine Online-Bewerbung mehr möglich.“ |
| --- | --- |

Anstatt:

„Bewerbungsschluss ist der 13. Juni 2022, 12.00 Uhr (mittags), Brüsseler Zeit. Danach ist keine Online-Bewerbung mehr möglich.“

| muss es heißen: | „Bewerbungsschluss ist der 4. Juli 2022, 12.00 Uhr (mittags), Brüsseler Zeit. Danach ist keine Online-Bewerbung mehr möglich.“ |
| --- | --- |

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

„Bewerbungsschluss ist der 4. Juli 2022, 12.00 Uhr (mittags), Brüsseler Zeit. Danach ist keine Online-Bewerbung mehr möglich.“

---
Exhibit 4C (xlv)



|                                                          |  |                                                                  |  |     
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----
|Smith & Nephew plc 15 Adam Street
London WC2N 6LA England |  | T 44 (0) 20 7401 7646 F 44 (0) 20 7930 3353
www.smith-nephew.com |  | LOGO

8 February 2017

Mr Robin Freestone

c/o: 15 Adam Street

London

WC2N 6LA

Dear Robin,

Following the Nomination & Governance Committee meeting on 7 February 2017 and the Board meeting on 8 February 2017, I am pleased to confirm your
appointment as Chairman of the Audit Committee of Smith and Nephew plc with effect 1 March 2017 when Ian Barlow will be ceasing to hold that role.

As a result
of these changes, your fees will increase to £63,000 in cash for your role as Non-Executive Director, £20,000 in cash for your role as Chairman of the Audit Committee and £5,135, which will
be paid in the form of shares in August each year (subject to income tax and statutory deductions). There is an additional allowance relating to inter-continental travel of £3,500 per trip.

Yours sincerely

Susan Swabey

Company Secretary
JOHN TATUM 990 S. Sherman

 ATTORNEY AT LAW Richardson, Texas 75081

(972) 705-9200 

March 24, 2015

Court of Criminal Appeals

c/o Abel Acosta

Chief Deputy Clerk

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Oral argument in Cause No. AP-77,021

Naim Muhammad v. The State of Texas 

Dear Mr. Acosta:

I am advising this Honorable Court that I, on behalf of Appellant in the above

referenced cause, am advising this court that Mr. Brady Wyatt will be assisting me in

presentation of oral argument in the above referenced death penalty case set for

submission on April 1, 2015. Mr. Wyatt is qualified to do death penalty cases and has

been part of a defense team before in Dallas County in the defense of capital murder

death penalty prosecution. He has expressed a desire to learn how to do death penalty

appeals and I am giving him an opportunity to assist in the presentation of oral

argument in this case. I will accompany him and be present at submission.

Sincerely,

John Tatum

AP,77,021

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 3/24/2015 8:37:27 PM

Accepted 3/25/2015 8:55:42 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2421 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Chloroacetic acid, sodium 

salt. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Chloroacetic 

acid, sodium salt. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHLOROACETIC ACID, SODIUM SALT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.34 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Chloroacetic acid, sodium salt) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2421 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7200

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JERMAINE LEE OSBORNE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:05-cr-00094-sgw-mfu-1; 7:09-cv-80147-sgw-mfu) 

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: November 9, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jermaine Lee Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Jermaine Lee Osborne seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

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. Miller-El 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 Osborne 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
#### Jorge LLIDA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 84-900.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 27, 1987.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged with attempted sexual battery, kidnapping, robbery and aggravated battery. Following adverse jury verdicts, he was sentenced to a term of 15 years imprisonment each, as to the counts of attempted sexual battery, robbery and aggravated battery, to run concurrently with each other. He was sentenced to a term of 99 years imprisonment on the kidnapping count to run concurrently with the sentence on the attempted sexual battery count. The trial court retained jurisdiction for a period of one-third of the total sentences. In the alternative, the trial court sentenced the appellant pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, departing therefrom and sentenced the appellant to three fifteen-year terms on the attempted sexual battery, robbery and aggravated battery counts and to 45 years on the kidnapping count, all sentences to run consecutively. In this instance the trial court retained jurisdiction over one-third of the cumulative sentences.

The appellant urges error in a prosecution comment in closing argument and in the sentencing, contending that he was entitled to be sentenced by his election with the preguidelines provisions of the statute, and that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-third of each of the concurrent sentences. We affirm.

Evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. He was immediately identified by the victim, and subsequently his photo was picked out of the lineup by the victim. He confessed at the scene of the crime and at the police station. Error, if any, in the prosecution comments was merely harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence. *State v. Murray,*443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984); *Breines v. State,*462 So.2d 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

*163As to the sentences, because the defendant elected to be sentenced by the preguideline statutory provisions for crimes committed prior to the effective date of the guidelines, this election should be honored. *Parsons v. State,*470 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); *Jordan v. State,*460 So.2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); *Rodriquez v. State,*458 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The trial judge should only have retained jurisdiction over one-third of the sentence, wherein the greatest amount of time was given. *Emshwiller v. State,*464 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); *Maddox v. State,*438 So.2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Section 947.16(4) Florida Statutes (1985).

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, that portion of the sentence that relates to alternative sentencing under the guidelines is stricken, and any retention of jurisdiction on the concurrent sentences is likewise stricken as amended. The adjudications and sentences under the preguideline statute are affirmed.
# Az Európai Unió C 296A/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0979 |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 296A |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 65. évfolyam2022. augusztus 3. |

ISSN 1977-0979

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 296A

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

65. évfolyam2022. augusztus 3.

---

| Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Hirdetmények |
| | KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK |
| | Fusion for Energy közös vállalkozás |
| 2022/C 296 A/01 | Felhívás a következő nyílt versenyvizsga-felhívás módosításáról: Fúziósenergia-fejlesztési és ITER Európai Közös Vállalkozás (F4E) – Pályázati felhívás igazgatói állás betöltésére (Ideiglenes alkalmazott – AD 14-es besorolási fokozat) – COM(2022) 20086 ( HL C 285 A., 2022.7.26. ) | 1 |

Tartalom

Oldal

V   Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Fusion for Energy közös vállalkozás

2022/C 296 A/01

Felhívás a következő nyílt versenyvizsga-felhívás módosításáról: Fúziósenergia-fejlesztési és ITER Európai Közös Vállalkozás (F4E) – Pályázati felhívás igazgatói állás betöltésére (Ideiglenes alkalmazott – AD 14-es besorolási fokozat) – COM(2022) 20086 ( HL C 285 A., 2022.7.26. )

( HL C 285 A., 2022.7.26. )

1

---

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

V Hirdetmények

KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ELJÁRÁSOK

Fusion for Energy közös vállalkozás

| 2022.8.3. | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | CA 296/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2022.8.3.

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

CA 296/1

---

Felhívás a következő nyílt versenyvizsga-felhívás módosításáról: Fúziósenergia-fejlesztési és ITER Európai Közös Vállalkozás (F4E) – Pályázati felhívás igazgatói állás betöltésére (Ideiglenes alkalmazott – AD 14-es besorolási fokozat) – COM(2022) 20086

(
  Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja C 285. A, 2022. július 26.
  )

(2022/C 296 A/01)

Az 5. oldalon, az „Alkalmazási feltételek” cím alatti hatodik bekezdésben:

| a következő szövegrész: | „Az állás 2024. január 1-jétől tölthető be.” |
| --- | --- |

a következő szövegrész:

„Az állás 2024. január 1-jétől tölthető be.”

| helyesen: | „Az állás 2023. január 1-jétől tölthető be.” |
| --- | --- |

helyesen:

helyesen:

„Az állás 2023. január 1-jétől tölthető be.”

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TARAH ELIZABETH CORDIER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 226 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of September, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 BigString  Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I,
Darin M. Myman,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)       the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of ss.13(a) or 15(d)
          of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.  ss.78m or 78o(d),
          and,

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



Dated:  May 12, 2006                    /s/ Darin M. Myman
                                      ---------------------------------------
                                      Darin M. Myman
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, Alst on and Senior Judge Coleman

FRANCISCO J. GARCIA MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1127-10-2 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 26, 2010 RBP CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND NORTH AMER ICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Brody H. Reid; Seth R. Carr olli; Reid Goodwi n, PLC; Geoff McDonald & Associates, P.C., on brief), for appellant.

(S. Vernon Priddy III; Two Rivers Law Group, P.C. , on brief), for appellees.

Francisco J. Garcia appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission

concluding he failed to establish hi s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. We

have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without

merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See

Garcia v. RBP Constr. , VWC File No. VA010-0242-1876 (Apr. 28, 2010). We dispense with

oral argument and summarily affirm because th e facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid th e decisional process.

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.