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

906 CERTIFICATION

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

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, 2011, 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: April 30, 2012



By:

/s/ Rong GuangdaoName:

Rong GuangdaoTitle:

Chairman
| 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 12, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Jeffrey Rosenfeld   |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | Jeffrey Rosenfeld,      |   |
|                               |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                               |   |                    |   |
August 12, 1997

19217

#### Kahana Sunset Owners Ass'n v. Maui County Council

Affirmed
<page>

Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q/A (the "Report") of Amaru,
Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Colin Binny, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         1.       The 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/ Colin Binny
------------------------------------
President, Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2008
# Anderson - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Tennessee Development District Executive Director Rick Yakubic Email &#114;&#x79;a&#x6b;&#x75;&#98;&#x69;c&#x40;&#x65;&#116;&#x64;d&#x2e;&#x6f;&#114;&#x67;The post East Tennessee Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2010301EN.01002702.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)

(Case T-400/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENERCON - Earlier Community word mark ENERGOL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Partial refusal to register)

2010/C 301/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BP plc (London, United Kingdom)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2008 (Case R 957/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between BP plc and Enercon GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reul C. Hunter, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction because there was no proof that he intended to commit a crime within the homeowner’s dwelling. We disagree. Defendant’s unexplained and unauthorized presence in the complainant’s living room in the middle of the night, coupled with his actions when confronted by the owner and the police, were sufficient to lead a reasonable trier of the facts to conclude that defendant possessed an intent to commit a crime at the time of his unlawful entry *(see, People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 381; *People v Gates,*170 AD2d 971). We further conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Lowery, JJ.
April 30, 1998

20612

#### State v. Albertini

Affirmed
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Vasquez, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered November 1, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*146Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecution’s eyewitness should not have been believed by the jury because her testimony was not credible and kept changing. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by several allegedly prejudicial remarks by the prosecutor on summation. However, the defendant failed to object to any of these challenged remarks and therefore, any claims of error with respect thereto are not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Balls,*69 NY2d 641, 642).

In light of the defendant’s extensive criminal history, we find that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 June 2009 – Commission v Finland**

**(Case C‐144/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 83/182/EEC – Tax exemptions – Temporary import of vehicles – Normal residence

1.                     *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. 29)*

2.                     *Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Mere administrative practices insufficient (Art.
249, third para., EC) (see para. 32)*

3.                     *Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Tax exemptions for means of transport temporarily imported (Council Directive 83/182,
Art. 7(1)) (see para. 35)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/112/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 59) – Incomplete definition of normal residence for the purpose of determining whether there is an entitlement to an exemption. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by using an incomplete definition of normal residence for the purpose of determining whether there is an entitlement to a tax exemption in respect of the temporary import of vehicles, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
ZACHARY LITTLETON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1029

Opinion filed July 26, 2017.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

Lanitra S. Sanchez of Sanchez Law, Tampa, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. Petitioner shall be allowed a belated 

appeal from the order denying defendant’s pro se amended motion for postconviction 

relief in Escambia County Circuit Court case number 2009-CF-5574. Upon issuance 

of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the 

circuit court for treatment as the notice of appeal. 

RAY, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2021182EN.01000701.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Wellcome Trust Ltd

(Case C-459/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 43 and 44 - Place of supply of services to a taxable person acting as such - Place of supply of investment management services received by a charitable organisation for a non-economic business activity from suppliers established outside the European Union)

(2021/C 182/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondent: Wellcome Trust Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a taxable person carrying on a non-economic activity in a business capacity acquires services for the purposes of that non-economic activity, those services must be regarded as being supplied to that taxable person ‘acting as such’, within the meaning of that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.

---
1 NO. 1 2- 15

- 00151

ROLAND ODO M § IN THE 12 TH COURT OF APPEALS

§

V. § TYLER DIVISION

§

STATE OF TEXAS § STATE OF TEXAS

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

NO W COMES Counsel, having file Appellant’s Brief finding no reversible

errors, requests that he be allowed to withdraw from this appeal , pursuant to Rule 6.5

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for same would show as follows:

I.

Anders Brief File d :

On 0 8- 31 -15 , Counsel filed Appellant’s Brief and reporter to the appellate

court th e re absence of a reversible error and the waiver of the appeal by Appellant.

II.

Deadlines & Settings :

To Counsel’s knowledge, there are no hearing set in this matter and there have

been no announcements of pending submission dates.

III.

Client’s Address :

Mr. Odom last known address is:

Roland I. Odom, Inmate No.: 00580038
Joe F. Gurney Transfer Unit

1385 FM 3328

Pa lestine, Texas 75803 ACCEPTED

12-15-00151-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

8/31/2015 2:35:15 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK2 IV.

Letter to Client :

Counsel sent a c opy of Appellant’s Brief to Appellant and explained

Appellant’s rights regarding delivery of the records in the case ; his right to object to

Appellant’s Brief prepared by Counsel; and his right to submit his own Brief to this

Court.

V

.
Requested Relief :

C ounsel requests permission to withdraw from the representation of Appellant.

V I

.

Conference :

Counsel would show that he conferred with opposing counsel and this Request

is presented as UNOPPOSED.

VII.

Certificate of Compliance (TRAP, Rule 9.4 (i)(3)) :

Co unsel certified that this document was prepared using WORD format and

the word

- count in this documents is 364

.

______________________________ _ STEN M. LANGSJOEN3 W HEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, C ounsel requests that this

Motion be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________ _ STEN M. LANGSJOEN
Attorney for Appellant

P.O. Box 539
Tyler, Texas 75710
Telephone: (903) 531

- 0171

Telefax: (903) 531

- 0187

TBA # 11922800

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was delivered by

certi fied mail, return receipt requested, and/or by "fax" transmission and/or by

hand

- delivery to District Attorney, Cherokee County, Texas, and was delivered by
certified mail, return receipt requested, and by regular mail to Inmate Roland

Odom

, on this 31 st day of August 2015.

____________________________ STEN M. LANGSJOEN
# C_2008171EN.01005001.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/50

---

Action brought on 22 January 2008 — Renier v Commission

(Case F-8/08)

(2008/C 171/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Colette Renier (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the individual decision of 11 April 2007 limiting the duration of the applicant's contract as a member of the contract staff to the period between 16 April 2007 and 15 December 2008 and an application for damages.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 11 April 2007 inasmuch as it limits the duration of the applicant's contract as a member of the contract staff to the period between 16 April 2007 and 15 December 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 11 April 2007 inasmuch as it limits the duration of the applicant's contract as a member of the contract staff to the period between 16 April 2007 and 15 December 2008;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
# Cullman - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Wallace State Community College: POWERing Electric Vehicle Learning WSCC prepares students for the future automotive industry. The post Wallace State Community College: POWERing Electric Vehicle Learning appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- North Central Alabama Regional Council of Governments Executive Director Robby Cantrell Email r&#99;&#x61;&#x6e;t&#114;&#x65;&#x6c;l&#64;&#x6e;&#x61;r&#99;&#x6f;&#x67;&#46;&#111;&#x72;&#x67;The post North Central Alabama Regional Council of Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
---

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 

I, Robert McAllister, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cheetah Oil & Gas
      Ltd. for the year ended January 31, 2009 (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 Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd.                                                              

Dated: April 14, 2009

| | /s/ Robert McAllister             
| | ----------------------------------
| | Robert McAllister                 
| | President, Chief Executive Officer
| | and Director                      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)     
| | Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd.            

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 Cheetah Oil
& Gas Ltd. and will be retained by Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# C_2009082EN.01002402.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/24

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2009 — Okalux v OHIM — Ondex (ONDACELL)

(Case T-126/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Failure to pay the opposition fee - Decision deeming the opposition non-existent - Action manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

(2009/C 82/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Okalux GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Ondex SAS (Chevigny-Saint-Sauveur, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2008 (Case R 1384/2007-4) regarding opposition proceedings between Okalux GmbH and Ondex SAS.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Okalux GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Okalux GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2**Certification pursuant to****Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)**I, Edward J. Puisis, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Dayton SuperiorCorporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:TheAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period endingDecember 31, 2007 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) andThe information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: March 17, 2008           /s/ Edward J. Puisis   Edward J. Puisis    Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer