alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.1

906 Certification

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth
Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Annual Report of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I,
Rong Guangdao, the Chairman of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: June 10, 2010



By:

/s/ Rong GuangdaoName:

Rong GuangdaoTitle:

Chairman
# Elbert - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northeast Georgia Regional Commission Executive Director Burke Walker Email b&#119;&#97;&#108;&#x6b;&#x65;&#x72;&#64;n&#101;&#103;&#x72;&#x63;&#x2e;&#x6f;rgThe post Northeast Georgia Regional Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
#### State v. Keanini

17943

4/18/95

Affirmed
#### In the Matter of Stephen Q. Gray et al., Respondents, v Audrey G. Hochberg, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding to validate a petition seeking an opportunity to ballot in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1991, for the public office of Westchester County Legislator for the Eighth County Legislative District, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), dated August 19, 1991, as granted the application only to the extent of directing that the voters of the Republican Party be afforded the opportunity to ballot at the Republican Party primary election for the public office of Westchester County Legislator for the Eighth County Legislative District.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petition for an opportunity to ballot was defective because of insufficient signatures *(see, Matter of Hochberg v D’Apice,*112 AD2d 1067, 1068, *affd*65 NY2d 960). In any event, an opportunity to ballot may be afforded where there is a ostensibly viable candidacy nullified by technical challenge, thereby depriving the party’s voters of their manifest intent to field a candidate *(Matter of Hochberg v D’Apice, supra,*at 1068). No such circumstances were present here. Not only was the sole designating petition facially invalid because of the failure to obtain the required minimum number of signatures *893
      *(see, Matter of Quaglia v Lefever,*143 AD2d 238), but, in addition, that petition was never even filed. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
# C_2010317EN.01002602.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2010 — Interflon v OHIM — Illinois Tool Works (FOODLUBE)

(Case T-200/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark FOODLUBE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 317/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Interflon BV (Rosendaal, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Wertwijn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Illinois Tool Works, Inc. (Glenview, Illinois, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Interflon BV and Illinois Tool Works, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007-2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal with regard to chemicals used in industry in Class 1, and industrial oils and greases and lubricants in Class 4; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 March 2008 (Case R 638/2007-2) in so far as it dismisses the appeal with regard to chemicals used in industry in Class 1, and industrial oils and greases and lubricants in Class 4;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STAIE OF MONTANA OP 24-0307
MIKEL LETHERMAN,

Petitioner,

v. JACKIE KEERY, GALLATIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

Respondent. ORD,ER

Self-represented PetitionerMikel Letherman has filed a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus, indicating illegal incarceration due to a lack of credit for tirne served upon resentencing and alleged invalidity of his bail-jumping conviction. Upon review ofhis Petition, we deern it appropriate to require a response. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Attorney General or counsel for the Departrnent of Correction is GRANTED thirty days from the date ofthis Order in which to prepare, file, and serve a written response together with appropriate documentary exhibits. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord; to Jackie Keery, Jail Commander, Gallatin County Detention Center; and to Mikel S. Letherrnan personally. DATED this n 41

da y ofMay, 2024. 

# cas— Justice 05/24/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0307
# C_2010179EN.01003701.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — Bui Van v Commission

(Case T-491/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Withdrawal of an administrative measure - Protection of legitimate expectations - Reasonable time - Right to be heard)

(2010/C 179/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Bui Van (Hettange-Grande, France) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 in Case F-51/07 Bui Van v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, for annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 in Case F-51/07 Bui Van v Commission inasmuch as it awards Philippe Bui Van damages of EUR 1 500; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 in Case F-51/07 Bui Van v Commission inasmuch as it awards Philippe Bui Van damages of EUR 1 500;

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal and the remainder of the claims in the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal and the remainder of the claims in the cross-appeal;

| 3. | Remits the case to the Civil Service Tribunal for it to give judgment on the action for damages; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Remits the case to the Civil Service Tribunal for it to give judgment on the action for damages;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

---
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Glenn
Welstad, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the
“Company”) do hereby 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:





This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
September 25, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date:         January
15, 2010





/s/ Glenn WelstadGlenn
      WelstadPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. KING of Iowa:
       H.R. 6333.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       This bill is enacted pursuant to Congress' powers granted 
     under article I of the United States Constitution, including 
     the power granted to Congress under article I, section 8, 
     clause 18, of the United States Constitution, and the power 
     granted to each House of Congress under article I, section 5, 
     clause 2, of the United States Constitution.
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00688

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF CARLOS AGUILAR, DECEASED

, From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- PB4

- 000048 L2 Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due on February 29, 2016

. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time w as filed. Appellant is represented on appeal by Mr. Ryan Grant Anderson

. On March 9, 2016, this court ordered Mr. Anderson file appellant’s brief no later than March 30, 2016

. Our order cautioned Mr. Anderson that if he fail ed to file the brief by this date or fail ed to reasonably explain the reason for his failure to do so, this appeal w ould be dismissed for want of prosecution. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a) (1)

. On March 31, 2015, Mr. Anderson filed a motion asking for a two

- day extension of time to file the brief, and this court granted the extension to April 1, 2016. The brief ha s not been filed.

Accordingly, Mr. Anderson is hereby ORDERED to show cause in writing, no later than Apri l 18 , 2016 , why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a) (1); 42.3 (b), (c). Failure to respond by April 18 , 2016 will result in the dismissal of this appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a).

On April 5, 2016, appellee filed a motion for sanctions, asserting the appeal is frivolous and citing Mr. Anderson’s failure to file appellant’s b rief. Appellee’s motion for sanctions is ORDERED HELD IN ABEYANCE.

The Clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Mr. Anderson by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by United States mail.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 8th day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23.3



CONSENT OF EXPERT



I consent to the reference to me under the headings
“Item 3.A Selected Financial Data–Risks Relating To Our Business–Our Reserve Estimates Could Be Subject
To Significant Changes,” “Item 4.D Property, Plant and Equipment–Brines from the Salar de Atacama: Facilities
and Reserves” and “Item 19. Exhibits” in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sociedad Química y Minera de
Chile S.A. (“SQM”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014:



|May 18, 2015 |  | /s/ Álvaro Henríquez            
|------------ |  | --------------------------------
|             |  | Álvaro Henríquez                
|             |  | Superintendent of Geology of SQM
```

[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 Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts:
       H.R. 6193.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution; 
     clause 18 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution; 
     section 5 of Amendment XIV to the Constitution.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Medical Connections Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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



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



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



|                        |  |     |                                     
|----------------------- |  | --- | ------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2009 |  |     |                                     
|                        |  | By: | /s/ JOSEPH AZZATA                   
|                        |  |     | Joseph Azzata,                      
|                        |  |     | Chief Executive Officer and Director
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rudolph Hawthorne, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered March 14, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to establish a prima facie case that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges were employed for a discriminatory purpose *(see, Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79, 96; *People v Scott,*70 NY2d 420; *People v Gallagher,*158 AD2d 469; *People v Liguori,*149 AD2d 624, 625; *People v Barlow,*148 AD2d 739; *People v Malbon,*144 AD2d 698). In any event, the prosecutor promptly set forth race-neutral explanations for the peremptory challenges in question.

The defendant’s claim that the testimony of the arresting officer improperly bolstered the complainant’s out-of-court identification of the defendant in violation of *People v Trow-bridge*(305 NY 471) is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951, 953; *People v Tinsley,*159 AD2d 602). The trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection and instructed the jury to disregard the *881officer’s testimony concerning the complainant’s identification of the defendant. Defense counsel thereafter did not request any further curative instructions or move for a mistrial. In any event, any error in the admission of such bolstering testimony must be deemed harmless in light of the ample opportunity which the complainant had to observe the defendant during the commission of the crime *(see, People v Johnson,*57 NY2d 969, 970-971; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242; *People v Gannaway,*170 AD2d 529; *People v Liberatore,*167 AD2d 425; *People v Tinsley, supra,*at 602). The strength of the complainant’s identification evidence precluded any significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the bolstering errors *(see, People v Johnson, supra; People v Mobley,*56 NY2d 584; *People v Crimmins, supra; People v Tinsley, supra,*at 603).

We also find that the statements made by the prosecutor during summation which the defendant contends constituted prosecutorial misconduct were either proper responses to the defense summation *(see, People v Anderson,*154 AD2d 607, 608; *People v Sykes,*151 AD2d 523, 524), or properly cured by appropriate curative instructions *(see, People v Medina, supra,*at 953; *People v Johnson,*154 AD2d 618, 619), and thus the issue of their propriety is not preserved for appellate review due to defense counsel’s acquiescence in the curative instructions given by the court *(see, People v Medina, supra,*at 953).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2008197EN.01001303.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/13

---

Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-218/08)

(2008/C 197/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to draw up external emergency plans for all the establishments for which those plans are required, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to draw up external emergency plans for all the establishments for which those plans are required, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC (2);

1

2

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Seveso II directive pursues the objective of preventing major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances and limiting their consequences for man and the environment. It is clear that the drawing up of external emergency plans is a fundamental provision of that directive: it ensures that in the case of accidents urgent measures are adopted to limit their consequences.

Article 11 applies, by virtue of the references made in Article 9 and Article 2 of the directive, to all establishments where dangerous substances are present in quantities equal to or in excess of the quantities listed in Annex I, Parts 1 and 2, column 3.

The Italian authorities confirm with data from their own sources that not all the establishments which ought to have external emergency plans have actually been provided with such plans.

---

(1)  OJ L 10 of 14.1.1997, p. 13.

1

(2)  OJ L 345 of 31.12.2003, p. 97.

2

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 1742: Mr. Rangel and Ms. Bass of California.
       H.R. 2524: Mr. Lujan and Mr. Serrano.
       H.R. 3067: Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Hastings of Florida.
       H.R. 3713: Mrs. Ellmers.
       H.R. 4212: Mr. Markey.
       H.R. 6241: Mr. Fattah, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Rangel, 
     Mr. Cummings, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Chu, Ms. Eddie 
     Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Fudge, Mr. Engel, Ms. Clarke of 
     New York, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Ackerman, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Connolly 
     of Virginia, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Brady of 
     Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
     Doyle, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Bass of California, Mr. Andrews, 
     Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Farr, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. George Miller 
     of California, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. 
     Levin.
       H.R. 6290: Mr. Jones and Mr. Ribble.
       H.R. 6292: Mr. Rohrabacher.
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Medical Connections Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Anthony Nicolosi, President 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, to my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Anthony Nicolosi
|                | Anthony Nicolosi    
|                | President           
|                |                     
|August 14, 2012 |                     





---
Exhibit 32.2



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 quarterly report of Easton Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela A. Mussenden, Assistant 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:



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 operating results of the Company.



Date: May 17, 2004



/s/ Pamela A. MussendenPamela A. MussendenAssistant Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)