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 Annual Report of QueryObject Systems Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
Pess, President, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and Treasurer 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 my
knowledge:





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





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




/s/ Daniel
      PessApril 15,
    2009
                Daniel
  PessPresident
      and Treasurer
                  (Principal
      Executive, Financial and Accounting
Officer)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSE MACIAS
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 3509

[ May 4, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Robert R. Makemson , Judge; L.T. Case No.

562013CF000310A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

D AMOORGIAN

, J

.

A jury found Appellant, Jose Macias, guilty of one count of lewd or lascivious battery, one count of lewd or lascivious molestation, one count of kidnapping, and one count of a burglary of a dwellin g with an assault or battery. The court adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced him on

all counts except for the lewd or lascivious molestation count which it “held in abeyance.” On appeal, Appellant takes issue with several of the court’s evidentiary rulings at trial. He also argues that the court’s

decision to hold his lewd or lascivious molestation conviction in abeyance constitutes a violation of double jeopard y.

We find no error in any of the court’s underlying evidentiary rulings

and thus affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences for lewd or lascivious battery, kidnapping, and burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery without further comment. However, w e agree with Appellant that the court’s decision to hold the lewd or lascivious molestation count in abeyance violated double jeopardy as Appellant

could not be convicted of both lewd or lascivious battery and lewd or2

lascivious molestation arising out of the same conduct

. Graves v. State

, 95 So. 3d 1033, 1036 (Fla. 5th D CA 2012). The State properly concedes

error on this issue. Accordingly , we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court vacate the verdict of guilt as to lewd or lascivious molestation count. See Burford v. State , 8 So. 3d 478 , 480

– 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (remanding for vacation of conviction for offense which was held “in abeyance” because the conviction violated double jeopardy).

Affirmed in part, r eversed in part, and r emanded

.

G ROSS and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2019406EN.01003101.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Marijn van Oosten Holding (UKIO)

(Case T-367/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark UKIO - Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 406/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: C. Casas Feu and J. Dorado Lopez-Lozano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Kusturovic, D. Gája and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marijn van Oosten Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2018 (Case R 1536/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sixsigma Networks Mexico and Marijn van Oosten Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267 6.8.2018.

---
Item_5.2_Glossary definition for “Poultry” / page 1

 Item_5.2_Glossary definition for “Poultry” / page 1 

Annex 5

GLOSSARY

[...]

*DISTRESS*

means the state of an animal, that has been unable to adapt to stressors, and that manifests as abnormal physiological or behavioural responses. It can be acute or chronic and may result in pathological conditions.

[...]

*~~MEAT-AND-BONE MEAL~~*

~~means the solid protein products obtained when animal tissues are rendered, and includes any intermediate protein product other than peptides of a molecular weight less than 10,000 daltons and amino-acids.~~

[...]

*PAIN*

means an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. It may elicit protective actions, result in learned avoidance and distress and may modify species-specific traits of behaviour, including social behaviour.

[...]

*PROTEIN MEAL*

means any final or intermediate solid protein-containing product, obtained when animal tissues are rendered, excluding ~~: blood and blood products,~~peptides of a molecular ~~weight~~mass less than 10,000 daltons and amino-acids. 

[...]

___________________________

Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2023	1

Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / February 2023	1

Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission / February 2023	1
21881

#### State v. Maelega

Affirmed
# ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

January 12, 2024 CR-2022-0957 James Leon Smith v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Wilcox Circuit Court: CC-16- 29) 

## NOTICE You are hereby notified that on January 12, 2024, the following action was taken in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals: Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
#### State v. Wells

17067

5/25/95

Denied

894 P.2d 70
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NWRC Field Stations

Last Modified: 

Print

National Wildlife Research Center Headquarters 

Ft. Collins, Colorado

Florida Field Station 

Gainesville, Florida

Hawaii Field Station 
Hilo, Hawaii

Mississippi Field Station 

Starkville, Mississippi

North Dakota Field Station 

Fargo, North Dakota

Ohio Field Station 

Sandusky, Ohio
Utah Field Station 

Logan, Utah
##### 



EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
      I. EMPLOYMENT
 1.1
Employment As Senior Executive.
  1.2 Exclusive Services.
 II. COMPENSATION, BENEFITS AND PERQUISITES
 2.1 Base Salary.




---



##### 



2.2 Bonuses.
   th th
   -2-




---



##### 



2.3 Stock Options.
 2.4 Vacations.
 2.5 Employee Benefits.
 2.6 Employment Taxes and Withholding.
 2.7 Company Responsibility for Insured Benefits.
 2.8 Expenses.
 -3-




---



##### 



III. TERMINATION OF EXECUTIVES EMPLOYMENT
 3.1 Termination of Employment.
    3.2 Cause.
 -4-




---



##### 



3.3 Disability.
 3.4 Resignation.
 3.5 Compliance with Code Section 409A.
 IV. NON-COMPETITION, CONFIDENTIALITY AND TRADE SECRETS
 4.1 Agreement Not to Compete.
 -5-




---



##### 



4.2 Non-Disclosure of Information.
 -6-




---



##### 



4.3 Remedies.
 4.4 Proprietary Information and Employment Limitations.
 V. MISCELLANEOUS
 5.1
Amendment.
 5.2 Entire Agreement.
 5.3 Assignment.
 5.4 Successors.
 5.5 Notices.
 -7-




---



##### 



5.6 Waiver of Breach.
 5.7 Severability.
 5.8 Governing Law.
 -8-




---



##### 



5.9 Headings.
 5.10 Counterparts.
 -9-




---



##### 



DIGI INTERNATIONAL INC./s/ Ken MillardBy  /s/ Ken MillardIts  Lead Director of the Board EXECUTIVE/s/ Joseph T. DunsmoreJoseph T. Dunsmore
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60910

Summary Calendar

NDIAGA GUEYE

Petitioner

v. 

ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 140 127

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

Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ndiaga Gueye petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s

decision to deny his applications for asylum and withholding of

removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Gueye argues that the BIA

erred in determining that he had not established past persecution

based on his political affiliation, a well-founded fear of future

persecution, or that it was more likely than not that he would be

tortured if he were returned to Senegal. He contends that he
No. 05-60910

-2-

established his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal

under both the INA and the CAT by adducing evidence concerning

the likelihood that Senegalese officials will persecute him based

on his membership in the Movement for Democratic Forces in

Casamance (MFDC).

The record evidence in the instant case does not compel a

conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that Gueye was not

entitled to asylum or withholding of removal under the INA. See

Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). The search of

Gueye’s home is insufficient to establish past persecution. See

Shehu v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 435, 440 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2006). The

record evidence also fails to establish that Gueye has a

reasonable fear of future persecution based on his MFDC

membership. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir.

1994). To the contrary, Gueye has openly and safely returned to

Senegal on two separate occasions. This fact alone undercuts his

claim that he fears being persecuted if he is returned to

Senegal. Gueye’s INA claims are unavailing. 

Gueye’s CAT claim is likewise unavailing, as he has failed

to show that he will likely be tortured if he is returned to

Senegal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Gueye’s petition for review is DENIED.
# C_2019305EN.01005401.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — Balani Balani and Others v EUIPO — Play Hawkers (HAWKERS)

(Case T-651/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark HAWKERS - Earlier EU figurative mark HAWKERS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 305/65)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Sonu Gangaram Balani Balani (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain), Anup Suresh Balani Shivdasani (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria) and Amrit Suresh Balani Shivdasani (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria) (represented by: A. Díaz Marrero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Play Hawkers, SL (Elche, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 August 2018 (Case R 396/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Play Hawkers, on the one side, and Mr Balani Balani, Mr Balani Shivdasani and Mr Balani Shivdasani, on the other side.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sonu Gangaram Balani Balani, Anup Suresh Balani Shivdasani and Amrit Suresh Balani Shivdasani to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sonu Gangaram Balani Balani, Anup Suresh Balani Shivdasani and Amrit Suresh Balani Shivdasani to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---
Adulto

Color marrón amarilloso pálido con 

manchas color marrón más oscuro en 

las alas anteriores

La larva pupa 

en un lugar de 

alimentación 

o “nido” que 

construye entre 

dos hojas, una 

hoja y una fruta, 

en el brote, o en 

una sola hoja.

Alrededor de un tercio a 

dos quintos de pulgada 

de largo 

Los huevos son 

color blanco 

pálido y se 

traslapan un 

poco. 

Los huevos 

usualmente se 

depositan en 

grupos de 

20 a 50.

Las orugas son 

verdes y miden 

un poco más de 

media pulgada.

Alas con manchas 

negras, amarillas y color 

marrón aceituna

Huevos Larva(s)

CICLO DE VIDA

Pupas

PALOMILLA MARRÓN CLARO 

DE LA MANZANA
Fruta dañada por larvas

BACK

Para obtener más información, visite: 

Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos

Servicio de Inspección Sanitaria de Animales y Plantas

El Departamento de Agricultura de EEUU es un proveedor y empleador que ofrece igualdad de 

oportunidades. Material del programa núm. 2125-LBAM-S Publicado en septiembre de 2012

PLAGASHAMBRIENTAS.COM

FÍJESEEN LO SIGUIENTE

• Capullo/cubierta protectora en 

hojas nuevas

• Manchas visibles causadas por 

la oruga al introducirse en la fruta 

ELDAÑO QUE CAUSA

La palomilla marrón claro de la manzana se alimenta de 

y daña una gran variedad de plantas, incluidas las que 

se encuentran en los huertos de los jardines traseros y 

los productos agrícolas. Se conoce que se alimenta de 

más de 2,000 especies de plantas y árboles y 250 cultivos 

agrícolas. Esta palomilla puede resultar en la pérdida de 

millones de dólares para nuestra industria agrícola ya que 

las larvas se alimentan directamente de las frutas (tales 

como las manzanas, las bayas, los cítricos, las uvas, los 

melocotones, las peras y las papas), las que por tanto no 

pueden mercadearse. La palomilla también puede afectar 

a las rosas, los crisantemos, los jazmines y los tréboles, y a 

los árboles de eucalipto, álamo y pino. 

LO QUE USTED PUEDE HACER

• No traiga o envíe por correo frutas frescas, vegetales, 

esquejes de vid o plantas a su estado o a cualquier otro a 

menos que sean autorizadas por los inspectores agrícolas 

con anterioridad. 

• No remueva productos frescos de su propiedad si se 

encuentran en un área bajo cuarentena. 

• Limpie los equipos antes de moverlos de un lugar a otro. 

• Permita que los trabajadores agrícolas autorizados 

entren a su propiedad para inspeccionar si hay palomilla. 

• Reporte cada vez que vea esta plaga en

PlagasHambrientas.com.
18860

#### State v. Sasaki

January 22, 1997

Order No. 97-4

Affirmed
----

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

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

| /s/      Clayton W. Williams |
|------------------------------|
| Clayton      W. Williams     |
| Chief      Executive Officer |
| May      9, 2008             |
|                         |
|                         |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs        |
| Mel      G. Riggs            |
| Chief      Financial Officer |
| May      9, 2008             |
#### Richard AINSLIE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Samuel W. SMITH, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 13790.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 11, 1975.

Thomas A. Jones, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

ELLETT, Justice:

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He had been convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree but did not appeal therefrom. In his petition for habeas corpus, he attempted to raise the very issues which he could have brought up on appeal.

We have heretofore held that in a petition for habeas corpus one cannot raise issues which could have been determined on appeal.1

Mr. Ainslie was charged in the Information with murder in the first degree. Just before trial he moved the court to permit him to waive a jury and be tried to the court. The state made no objection, and the court granted the motion. At trial Mr. Ainslie was found guilty of murder in the second degree, an offense included in the charge set out in the Information. He now complains because the court granted his motion, and he contends that he could not constitutionally waive a jury trial, however much it might have been to his advantage to do so.

After Mr. Ainslie filed his brief in this matter, this court handed down its decision in the case of State v. Maguire,2 which by unanimous decision held that a defendant charged with murder in the first degree could waive a jury and be tried to the court. That case would be determinative of the instant matter even if Mr. Ainslie had brought an appeal instead of the petition for habeas corpus.

The judgment of the trial court is sustained.

HENRIOD, C. J., and CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the result.

1

. Schad v. Turner, 27 Utah 2d 345, 496 P.2d 263 (1972) ; Bryant v. Turner, 19 Utah 2d 284, 431 P.2d 121 (1967).

2

. Utah, 529 P.2d 421 (1974).
CSB BANCORP, INC.EXHIBIT 31.1Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CertificationPresident and Chief Executive OfficerI, John J. Limbert, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CSB Bancorp, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
22.

 
CSB BANCORP, INC. a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: November 12, 2005 /s/ John J. Limbert   John J. Limbert   President andChief Executive Officer  
23.
March 24, 1998

20903

#### Bisbee v. Administrative Director of the Courts, State of Hawai'i

Affirmed
Exhibit 99.1

VERTEL CORPORATION

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Vertel Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc E. Maassen, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Ss 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.

|/s/ MARC E. MAASSEN                                                     | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                        | 
|Marc E. Maassen President and Chief Executive Officer November 19, 2002 |