alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

         In connection with the Report of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Colin Binny President (Chief Executive 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:

                  (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/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
Colin Binny
President (Chief Executive Officer)
May 24, 2004


<PAGE>

                           CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

         In connection with the Report of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Colin Binny, 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:

                  (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/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
Colin Binny
Chief Financial Officer
May 24, 2004
#### Mary Taylor, Respondent, v Charles Henderson, as Administrator of the Estate of Lynn Henderson, Deceased, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy,*140 AD2d 988). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Inglehart, J. — Negligence.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4353 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to require reporting by the National 

Institutes of Health on requests for funding research that were not 

granted and had the greatest potential for improving public health, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2017 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to require reporting 

by the National Institutes of Health on requests for 

funding research that were not granted and had the 

greatest potential for improving public health, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Missed Opportunities 

5 in Public Health and Biomedical Research Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4353 IH

1 SEC. 2. ANNUAL REPORTING BY NIH ON MISSED OPPORTU2 NITIES. 

3 The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et 

4 seq.) is amended by inserting after section 403D of such 

5 Act (42 U.S.C. 283a–3) the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 403E. ANNUAL REPORTING ON MISSED OPPORTUNI7 TIES. 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than the last day of 

9 the first fiscal quarter following the end of each fiscal 

10 year, the Director of NIH shall submit a report to Con11 gress identifying, with respect to each national research 

12 institute, each national center, and the Office of the Direc13 tor of NIH— 

14 ‘‘(1) the success rate of grant applications re15 viewed during such fiscal year; 

16 ‘‘(2) the top two grant applications reviewed 

17 during such fiscal year that were not funded; and 

18 ‘‘(3) if the success rate described in paragraph 

19 (1) is lower than 32 percent, the top grant applica20 tions that were reviewed and could have been funded 

21 to achieve a success rate of at least 32 percent. 

22 ‘‘(b) TRADE SECRETS AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMA23 TION.—This section does not authorize the Secretary to 

24 disclose any information that is a trade secret or confiden25 tial information subject to section 552(b)(4) of title 5, 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4353 IH

1 United States Code, or section 1905 of title 18, United 

2 States Code. 

3 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 ‘‘(1) The term ‘success rate’ means the percent5 age of grant applications reviewed during the respec6 tive fiscal year that received funding. 

7 ‘‘(2) The term ‘top’ means having the greatest 

8 potential for— 

9 ‘‘(A) improving public health; 

10 ‘‘(B) advancing biomedical and behavioral 

11 research; and 

12 ‘‘(C) increasing fundamental knowledge 

13 about the nature and behavior of living systems, 

14 and the application of that knowledge towards 

15 enhancing health, lengthening life, and reducing 

16 illness and disability.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### Dahlen v. General Motors Corp.

18884

5/19/97

Dismissed and Remanded
# C_2009141EN.01001701.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht, Gotha (Germany)) — Glückauf Brauerei GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt

(Case C-83/08) (1)

1

(Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties - Directive 92/83/EEC - Article 4(2) - Small independent brewery which is legally and economically independent of any other brewery - Criteria of legal and economic independence - Possibility of being subject to indirect influence)

2009/C 141/27

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Thüringer Finanzgericht, Gotha

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glückauf Brauerei GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Erfurt

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Thüringer Finanzgericht, Gotha (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) — Classification as ‘independent small brewery’ for the purposes of application of reduced rates of duty — Criterion of ‘economic independence’ — Brewery liable, because of shareholdings and the allocation of voting rights, to be indirectly influenced by two other breweries

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that a situation characterised by the existence of structural links in terms of shareholdings and voting rights, and which results in a situation in which one individual, performing his duties as manager of a number of the breweries concerned, is able, independently of his actual conduct, to exercise influence over the taking of business decisions by those breweries, prevents them from being considered economically independent of each other.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification**I, Michael L. Middleton, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tri-County Financial Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:March 26, 2007         /s/ Michael L. Middleton   Michael L. Middleton   President and Chief Executive Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4360 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to include local government minimum 

wage requirements in determining the hourly minimum wage applicable 

for purposes of the work-study allowance under the educational assistance 

programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2017 

Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. BROWN

of Maryland, Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico, Ms. NORTON, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. TED LIEU

of California, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. PINGREE, Mr. PETERS, Mr. 

RASKIN, Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Mr. 

DESAULNIER, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, and Mr. SMITH of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to include local 

government minimum wage requirements in determining 

the hourly minimum wage applicable for purposes of 

the work-study allowance under the educational assistance programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs. 

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


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4360 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wage Adjustment for 

3 Veterans Student Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMOUNT OF WORK-STUDY ALLOWANCE UNDER DE5 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EDU6 CATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (6) of section 3485(a) 

8 of title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as 

9 follows: 

10 ‘‘(6) For the purposes of this subsection and 

11 subsection (e), the term ‘applicable hourly minimum 

12 wages’ means the higher of the following wages: 

13 ‘‘(A) The hourly minimum wage under sec14 tion 6(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

15 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)). 

16 ‘‘(B) The hourly minimum wage under 

17 comparable law of the State in which the serv18 ices are to be performed. 

19 ‘‘(C) The hourly minimum wage under 

20 comparable law of the local government with ju21 risdiction over the area in which the services 

22 are to be performed.’’. 

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

24 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a payment of 

25 work-study allowance made on or after January 1, 2019. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00243-CR

WILLIAM FREDERICK PETTY, III,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 18th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-F201700241

REINSTATEMENT ORDER

This appeal was abated on February 13, 2019 so that the trial court could determine 

whether appellant would be allowed to represent himself on appeal and whether 

counsel’s motion to withdraw would be granted. After a hearing where counsel, 

appellant, and the State were present, the trial court determined that appellant would not 

be allowed to represent himself on appeal and denied counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Accordingly, this appeal is reinstated. A brief for appellant is due 30 days from 

the date of this order. 
Petty v. State Page 2

Because counsel has not been allowed to withdraw, this Court will not 

acknowledge or act upon documents or requests sent to the Court by appellant, acting 

pro se.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray, and

Justice Davis

Appeal reinstated

Order issued and filed March 6, 2019
# C_2009069EN.01003202.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-130/08) (1)

1

(2009/C 69/68)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

1

---
#### Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York v Mill River Realty.

Motion for resettlement of this Court’s order (169 AD2d 665) entered on January 31, 1991 granted, as indicated. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mrs. ADAMS:
        H.R. 6185.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The authority to enact this bill is derived from, but may 
     not be limited to, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the 
     United States Constitution.
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements of Encorium Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Numbers 333-139337, 333-138305 and 333-115737) and Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Numbers 333-139628, 333-44096 and 333-143576) of our report dated April 24, 2009,relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Encorium Group, Inc., appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Encorium Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

April 24, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6956

JOHN LUCIOUS STAFFORD,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN,

 Respondent - Appellee.

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

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00154-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Lucious Stafford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Lucious Stafford seeks to appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition for failure to comply with a court 

order. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Stafford 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 this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mrs. MALONEY:
       H.R. 6198.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
       The Congress shall have Power to to regulate Commerce with 
     foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with 
     Indian Tribes.
```
# C_2021217EN.01000902.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2021 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union, European Parliament

(Case C-733/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources - Protection of marine ecosystems - Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 - Technical measures - Annex V, Part D - Ban on fishing by vessels using electric pulse trawls - Principle of proportionality - Precautionary principle)

(2021/C 217/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M.K. Bulterman, M. Noort and P. Huurnink, acting as Agents)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and A. Maceroni, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: R. van de Westelaken, I. Liukkonen and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères and M. J.-L. Carré, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 16.12.2019.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6761 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. OWENS, Defendant - Appellee. No. 98-6762 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHNNIE WATKINS, Defendant - Appellee. No. 98-6913 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant,2 versus MR. OWENS, Defendant - Appellee. No. 98-6920 ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. OWENS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA97-3334-DKC, CA-97-3335-DKC) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Nos. 98-6761 and 98-6762 dismissed and Nos. 98-6913 and 98-6920 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Gloria Wilson Shelton, David Phelps Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Albert Curtis Mills appeals various district court orders in two 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) actions. We have reviewedthe records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. We dismiss the appeals in Nos. 98-6761 and 98-6762, because Mills seeks to appeal non-existent orders. In Nos. 98-6913 and 98-6920, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mills v. Owens; Mills v. Watkins, Nos. CA-97-3334-DKC; CA-97-3335- DKC (D. Md. June 4 & 5, 1998). 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.

Nos. 98-6761/98-6762 - DISMISSED Nos. 98-6913/98-6920 - AFFIRMED
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00738

- CV

Ex Parte John E. Gaitan, Jr.
On Appeal from the 438th Judicial District Court of Bexar County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 2014

- CI

- 10474

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 2, 2015