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





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ZBB Energy Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert J. Parry, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, to my knowledge, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and 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.





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





/s/  Robert J.
    ParryRobert
      J. Parry(Principal
      Executive Officer)





May 13,
2009
Map Created: March 2014

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2012

Relative Per Capita Income Rates in Appalachia, 2012

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

Per capita income is a measure of the total personal income of 

an area divided by the resident population of the area. The 

percent of the U.S. average is computed by dividing the county 

per capita income by the national average and multiplying by 

100. The map uses critical breaks such as the national average 

to organize the data into groups of common values.

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

46.5% - 49.9%

50.0% - 74.9%

75.0% - 99.9%

100.0% - 118.4%

Percent of the U.S. Average 

U.S. average = $43,735

Appalachian average = $35,849

(Critical Breaks Classification)
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 – Guedes – Indústria e Comércio v OHIM – Espai Rural
de Gallecs (Gallecs)**

**(Case T-151/08)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Gallecs – Earlier national and Community figurative marks GALLO, GALLO AZEITE NOVO, GALLO AZEITE – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34-35, 50-56)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2008 (Case R 986/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Victor Guedes – Indústria e Comércio SA and Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Consorci de l’Espai Rural de Gallecs |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark GALLECS for goods in Classes 29 and 31 – Application No 3710597 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Victor Guedes – Indústria e Comércio, SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | The national figurative mark GALLO for goods in Class 29; the national figurative mark GALLO AZEITE NOVO for goods in Class 29; the national figurative mark AZEITE GALLO for goods in Class 29; the national mark GALLO AZEITE NOVO for goods in Class 29; the Community figurative mark GALLO for goods in Class 29 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Victor Guedes – Indústria e Comércio SA to pay the costs. |
# C_2008247EN.01001801.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/18

---

Action brought on 25 July 2008 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Novartis (ZYDUS)

(Case T-288/08)

(2008/C 247/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: S. Bailey, A. Juaristi and F. Potin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 1092/2007-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 1092/2007-2; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZYDUS’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 10 — application No 3 277 662

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 2 356 964 of the mark ‘ZIMBUS’ for goods in class 5

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Uphold the opposition with respect to part of the contested goods

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in its decision that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier trade mark and the trade mark applied for, in breach of general principles of trade mark law and, in particular, Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2009205EN.01003601.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (Alaska)

(Case T-226/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ALASKA - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2009/C 205/65

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH (Ebersburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Wadenbach, 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: Schwarzbräu GmbH (Zusmarshausen, Germany) (represented by: L. Schlarmann, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 1124/2004-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH and Schwarzbräu GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 3. | Orders Schwarzbräu GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Schwarzbräu GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 249 (Friday, December 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 90217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28738]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

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

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

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.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 29, 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 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 153 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-134, CP2024-140.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-28738 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
May 29, 2015 

Mr. Andrew Gifford 

1881 Wentworth Lane 

Green Cove Springs, FL 32043 

Dear Mr. Gifford.: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 24, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1182), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
#### Mary Catherine MILLAR, Appellant, (Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff below), v. John W. MILLAR, Appellee, (Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant below).

No. 3035.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 18, 1961.

No brief filed for appellant.

Henry A. Burgess, Sheridan, for respondent.

Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER,. HARNSBERGER, and McINTYRE, JJ..

Mr. Justice HARNSBERGER

delivered’ the opinion of the court.

Appellee has moved to dismiss the'appeal of the defendant and cross-plaintiff below for failure to comply with Rule 73(a) and’ Rule 75(b) of Wyoming Rules of Civil1 Procedure.

For the same reasons set forth in our opinion rendered this day in Butler v. McGee, Wyo., 363 P.2d 791, the motion to' dismiss is denied.

Denied.
#### Charles Frank JAMES, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-11872.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 25, 1953.

Rizley & Wilson, Sayre, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

This is a companion case to Meschew v. State of Oklahoma, Okl.Cr., 264 P.2d 391. A complete statement of the facts is set forth in the Meschew case and reference may be had to that opinion for the facts herein involved. Meschew and James were jointly charged.

The sole question raised in both of said cases is that the trial court submitted to the jury instructions Nos. 10 and 13 which it is claimed were prejudicial to the defendant, which claims were predicated upon the fact that the trial court interlined the instructions striking out the word “ten” in both of said instructions by drawing two lines through said words and inserting directly above, the word “five” in hand-written print inclosed in parenthesis. It is urged that said arrangement unduly called attention to the figure “5”. The same contentions as herein made were made in the Meschew case. The questions raised in the two cases being identical the treatment thereof as set forth in the Meschew case is adopted as applicable herein, and it necessarily follows that the same order would be made for the defendant Charles Frank James herein. The judgment and sentence for the reasons as set forth in the Meschew case, as adopted herein, is accordingly affirmed.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.
#### C. Eugene COOK and Harriet J. Cook, Individually and as husband and wife, Appellants, v. Noel P. FOX et al., Appellees.

No. 74-3470.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 25, 1976.

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1976.

Richard L. Basinger, Scottsdale, Ariz., for appellants.

George B. Nielson, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellees.

Before DUNIWAY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and CURTIS,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Jesse W. Curtis, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

In 1973, C. Eugene Cook was named a defendant in federal securities litigation in the Western District of Michigan. After moving to Arizona in 1974, Cook became displeased with certain orders filed in the *371Michigan litigation which prevented the removal of contested assets from the jurisdiction of the court. Cook and his wife thereupon sued United States District Judge Noel P. Fox and his wife for damages, filing the action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The district court in Arizona dismissed the action for want of personal jurisdiction over the named defendants, and Cook appeals. We affirm.

Personal jurisdiction in a federal court may be obtained pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 4(d)(7) by reference to the jurisdictional law of the state in which the federal court sits. The relevant part of Arizona’s “long arm” statute provides:

> “When the defendant * * * is a person * * * which has caused an event to occur in this state out of which the claim which is the subject of the complaint arose, service may be made * * * and when so made shall be of the same effect as personal service within the state.” Ariz.R.Civ.Proc. 4(e)(2).

The Foxes cannot be said to have “caused” any event giving rise to the Cooks’ complaint within the state of Arizona.

Furthermore, the court orders entered in a federal court sitting in Michigan, preventing the transfer of property within the jurisdiction of that court, do not sufficiently affect persons or property in Arizona to create even the minimal contacts necessary to satisfy due process. *See Aanestad v. Beech Aircraft Corp.,*521 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1974). Because the court sitting in Arizona had no personal jurisdiction of the named defendants, it is not necessary to discuss other alleged defects in the plaintiffs’ case.

The district judge did not abuse his discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1.406(a) in dismissing the action rather than transferring it to the district court for Michigan.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

               COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
                                              Office of the Clerk,

                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 2012.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     The Speaker, U.S. Capitol, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in 
     Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the Clerk received the following message 
     from the Secretary of the Senate on August 3, 2012 at 9:23 
     a.m.:
       That the Senate passed S. 3245.
       That the Senate agreed to S. Con. Res. 59.
       That the Senate agreed to S. Con. Res. 58.
       That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 4240.
       That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 3670.
       That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 1402.
       That the Senate agreed to without amendment H. Con. Res. 
     135.
       With best wishes, I am
           Sincerely,
     Karen L. Haas.

                          ____________________
```
# Cleveland - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Foothills Regional Commission Executive Director Dana Stansbury Email &#x64;&#115;&#x74;&#97;n&#x73;&#98;u&#x72;&#121;&#x40;&#x66;o&#x6f;&#116;h&#x69;&#108;&#x6c;&#x73;r&#x65;&#103;i&#x6f;&#110;&#46;&#x6f;&#114;&#x67;The post Foothills Regional Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
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 IVI Communications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, 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.



Date: November 12, 2004             /s/ Charles Roodenburg
                                   ----------------------
                                   Charles Roodenburg, Chief Financial Officer
# C_2010221EN.01004102.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — M6 and TF1 v Commission

(Joined Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08) (1)

1

(State aid - Public service broadcasting - Aid which the French Republic is intending to grant in favour of France Télévisions - Capital funding of EUR 150 million - Decision not to raise objections - Service of general economic interest - Criterion of proportionality - No serious difficulties)

2010/C 221/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Métropole télévision (M6) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: O. Freget, N. Chahid-Nouraï, R. Lazerges and M. Potel, lawyers); and Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicants: Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: E. Guillaume, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicants:

Interveners in support of the defendant: The French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, and then by G. de Bergues and L. Butel, Agents); and France Télévisions (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther, D. Tayar, A. Giraud and S. Snoeck, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Applications for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008 relating to the proposed grant, by the French Republic, of capital funding of EUR 150 million to France Télévisions SA, and applications for an order that the Commission open a formal investigation procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Métropole télévision (M6) to bear its own costs in Case T-568/08 and pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions in that case; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Métropole télévision (M6) to bear its own costs in Case T-568/08 and pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions in that case;

| 3. | Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs in Case T-573/08 and pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions in that case; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs in Case T-573/08 and pay those incurred by the European Commission and France Télévisions in that case;

| 4. | The French Republic and Canal + shall each bear their own costs in Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The French Republic and Canal + shall each bear their own costs in Cases T-568/08 and T-573/08.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---