alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of UnifyCorporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31,2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Todd E. Wille, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, dohereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated: September 9, 2003 | /s/ TODD E. WILLE       |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                     | Todd E. Wille           |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to UnifyCorporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

1

----
# C_2019363EN.01003601.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/36

---

Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — VV v Commission

(Case T-242/18) (1)

(2019/C 363/45)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2009 – Commission v Austria**

**(Case C‐401/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/82/EC – Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances – Article 11(1)(c) – Drawing up of external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishment – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 17)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) – Failure to draw up certain external emergency plans for the measures to be taken outside the establishment. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to draw up an external emergency plan for all establishments subject to the provisions of Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that Directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86686-86687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27414]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

[[Page 86687]]


DATES: Date of required notice: December 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 8, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
136 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-104, CP2024-108.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-27414 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**ALUMINA LIMITED**

 

**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alumina Limited, an Australian corporation (the“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year endedDecember 31, 2005 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: June 6, 2006
# C_2020443EN.01001801.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of Justice of 4 October 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — MG, NH v Germanwings GmbH

(Case T-190/19) (1)

(2020/C 443/19)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27992]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2445-028]


Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice of Revised Procedural 
Schedule for Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Project 
Relicense

    On December 23, 2021, Green Mountain Power Corporation filed an 
application for a subsequent license to continue to operate and 
maintain the 275-kilowatt Center Rutland Hydroelectric Project No. 2445 
(Center Rutland Project). On April 28, 2023, Commission staff issued a 
notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to 
evaluate the effects of relicensing the Center Rutland Project. The 
notice of intent included a schedule for preparing the EA.
    By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural 
schedule for completing the EA. The revised schedule is shown below. 
Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue EA...............................  February 2024.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Steve 
Kartalia at (202) 502-6131, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa898e9f8a929f94d4919b888e9b96939bba9c9f8899d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="087b7c6d78606d662663697a7c69646169486e6d7a6b266f677e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 14, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27992 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harry R. Shafer, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously af*565firmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial *(see,*CPL 30.20). Although nearly 23 months elapsed between defendant’s arrest and his trial date, the record demonstrates that most of that time was attributable to court scheduling and delay in addressing his suppression motion, "an excuse which *fweighs less heavily’*against the State” *(People v Watts,*86 AD2d 964, 964-965, *affd*57 NY2d 299; *see, People v Johnson,*38 NY2d 271, 279). Moreover, defendant was not incarcerated during the delay, and he has failed to establish any substantial prejudice resulting from the delay. After considering all of the relevant factors *(see, People v Taranovich,*37 NY2d 442, 445), we find that defendant’s constitutional rights were not abridged *(see, People v Watts, supra).*

We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Finnerty, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6946

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HERBERT COUNCIL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-97-P, CA-97-208-P)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 18, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herbert Council, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Council seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Council’s motion

for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability,

and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Council, Nos. CR-92-97-P; CA-97-208-P (W.D.N.C.

Apr. 29, 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2009267EN.01001701.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-97/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81(1) EC - Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Groups of undertakings - Imputability of infringements - Responsibility of a parent company for the infringement of competition rules by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Rebuttable presumption where the parent company has a 100 % shareholding)

2009/C 267/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV (represented by: C. Swaak, M. van der Woude and M. Mollica, avocats)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05 Akzo Nobel NV and Others v Commission of the European Communities, which rejected an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/566/EC of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.533 — Choline chloride) (OJ 2005 L 190, p. 22) concerning a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing, market sharing and agreed actions against competitors in the European market for choline chloride — Concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.

Akzo Nobel NV and Others

Commission of the European Communities

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

1

---
# C_2022051EN.01000501.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2021 — European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (C-884/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, European Commission (C-888/19 P)

(Joined Cases C-884/19 P and C-888/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of solar glass originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 2(7)(b) and (c) - ‘Undertaking operating under market economy conditions’ status - Denied - Concept of ‘significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system’, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) - Tax incentives)

(2022/C 51/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: European Commission (represented initially by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche and by A. Demeneix, and subsequently by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents) (C-884/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (represented by: R. MacLean, solicitor) (C-888/19 P)

Other parties to the proceedings: Xinyi PV Products (represented by Y. Melin and B. Vigneron, lawyers) (C-884/19 P and C-888/19 P), GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (represented by: R. MacLean, solicitor) (C-884/19 P), European Commission (represented initially by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche and by A. Demeneix, and subsequently by L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents) (C-888/19)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (T-586/14 RENV, EU:T:2019:668); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 September 2019, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission (T-586/14 RENV, EU:T:2019:668);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the second to fourth pleas in law raised before it; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the second to fourth pleas in law raised before it;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

EMRISE Corporation

Durham, NC

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-152282, 333-74281, 333-71035, 333-69571, 333-12567 and 333-65528) on Form S-8 of EMRISE Corporation of our report dated March 31, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 
| /s/BDO   USA, LLP        |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Woodbridge,   New Jersey |   |

 

March 31, 2011

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1)the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and (2)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.


|Dated: April 30, 2007 | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM   
|--------------------- | -----------------------
|                     
|                      | Steven D. Bonham       
|                      | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23
- 50531 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Alisha Rae Loflin,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:23
- CR
- 61 - 2

**_____________________ _________**  Before **King, Haynes,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Alisha Rae Loflin has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Loflin has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the re levant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 5, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50531 Document: 00517056103 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2024No. 23
- 50531

2 assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further resp onsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-50531 Document: 00517056103 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2024
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JEREMIAH SUSTAITA,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00142

- CR

Appeal from the

34th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20150D00821 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We

further order this decision be certified below for observ ance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 20 18

.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### Jose LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden; Richard Phillips; D. Greer, a/k/a Officer D. Greer, a/k/a Greek; Sergeant Burtin N; Lieutenant Raynolds, a/k/a Lieutenant Reynolds; Correctional Officer King; Correctional Officer Buchanan; Major Yates; Counselor Yeary; Correctional Officer Bellamy; Sergeant Collins; Michael Fleming, Correctional Officer, a/k/a Correctional Officer Flemirg; Tommy Jackson, Correctional Officer, a/k/a Correctional Officer Jackson; Paul Ohai, MD, a/k/a Doctor Ohai; Tammy Thomas, Nurse, a/k/a R.N. Ms. Thomas; Donnie Lester, Lieutenant, a/k/a Lieutenant Lester; Sergeant Bentley; Sergeant Anderson; F. Willis, Investigator; Teresa L. Johnson, a/k/a Medical Director T. Johnson; Mr. Philips, Assistant Warden of Programs; Ms. Baker, Counselor; Kenneth Slater, MD, a/k/a Doctor Slater; Correctional Officer Bliley; Brian Kiser, a/k/a Correctional Officer Kiser; R.A. Young, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees, and Sherry Stafford, Nurse; Vicky Harper, Nurse, a/k/a Nurse Harper; Ms. McCurry, R.N.; Ms. Berry, R.N.; Doctor Smith; Medical Department; Grievance Department; Institutional Administrators, Wallens Ridge State Prison; Ms. Mullins, R.N., Defendants.

No. 05-6747.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 18, 2005.

Decided Oct. 20, 2005.

Jose Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Edward Joseph McNelis, III, John David McChesney, Rawls & Mcnelis, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*843PER CURIAM:

Jose Lopez appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Lopez v. Young,*No. CA-01-876 (W-D.Va. filed Mar. 30, 2005; entered Mar. 31, 2005). 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.

*AFFIRMED*