alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson Rafael ZAPATA-VICENTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-6523.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 19, 2005.

Decided: Oct. 13, 2005.

Nelson Rafael Zapata-Vicente, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Whey Miller, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Nelson Rafael Zapata-Vicente, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order construing his letter of February 14, 2005, as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

Upon review, we find that Zapata-Vicente’s letter is more appropriately construed as a motion seeking relief from the district court’s judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b). *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*- U.S. -,-, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2648, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.2003). Rather than seeking to file new claims pursuant to § 2255, Zapata-Vicente argued in his letter that he filed his amended § 2255 motion within the time originally allotted to him by the district court.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for the court to consider Zapata-Vicente’s letter pursuant to Rule 60(b).* We express no opinion as to whether Zapata-Vicente is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). We deny ZapataVieente’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*

*

 We note that a certificate of appealability was granted below.
# C_2009019EN.01003002.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/30

---

Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Giordano Enterprises v OHIM — José Dias Magalhães & Filhos (GIORDANO)

(Case T-483/08)

(2009/C 19/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Giordano Enterprises Ltd (Jalan Merdeka, Malaysia) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Dias Magalhães & Filhos Lda (Arrifana, Portugal)

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 28 July 2008 in case R 1864/2007-2, as far as it dismissed the appeal of the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2008 in case R 1864/2007-2, as far as it dismissed the appeal of the applicant; and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

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 ‘GIORDANO’ for goods in classes 18 and 25

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: Portuguese trade mark registration No 322 534 of the word mark ‘GIORDANO’ for goods in class 25

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division to the extent that it upheld the opposition for certain goods in class 18 and dismissed the appeal for the reminder

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 42 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as well as Rule 15 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal wrongly rendered a decision pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 while the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal based its opposition only on Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) of MCG Capital
Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Steven F. Tunney, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ STEVEN F. TUNNEYName:

Steven F. TunneyTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

May 8, 2009
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Madison BancShares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert B. McGivney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. |  | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the Report.
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  | 
|-------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: August 8, 2003 |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |
**Exhibit
        32.1**
  **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. §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, 2007 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:
                  August 20, 2007
              
              /s/ Charles
                RoodenburgCharles
                  Roodenburg
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
                Chief
                  Financial
                  Officer
#### Warren S. EARHART, as Trustee of Edward A. Jones, Bankrupt, Appellant, v. Frank VALERIUS.

No. 11586.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Sept. 15, 1939.

K. Martin Kirschner, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

Lathrop, Crane, Reynolds, Sawyer & Mersereau, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal, 25 F.Supp. 754, docketed and dismissed without costs to either party in this court, on motion of appellant and consent of appellee.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Armkel, LLC (the
"Company") certifies to her knowledge that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
ended September 26, 2003 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 that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operation of the Company.



November 10, 2003                         /s/ Maureen Usifer
---------------------------               ------------------------------------
Date                                      Maureen Usifer
                                          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 Church & Dwight Co., Inc. and will
be retained by Church & Dwight Co., Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 City Network, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Tiao-Tsan Lai,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies,  in  all  material  respects,  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/ Tiao-Tsan Lai
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Tiao-Tsan Lai
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           November 21, 2005

THIS  CERTIFICATION  IS MADE  SOLELY FOR  PURPOSES  OF 18 U.S.C.  SECTION  1350,
SUBJECT  TO THE  KNOWLEDGE  STANDARD  CONTAINED  THEREIN,  AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE.

A SIGNED  ORIGINAL  OF THIS  WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED  BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT 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.  THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE "FILED" AS PART
OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB THAT IT ACCOMPANIES.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 464 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 464

         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2017

Mr. Connolly (for himself, Mr. Poe of Texas, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. 
 Cicilline, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Norton, Mr. Quigley, 
 and Mr. Yarmuth) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cameras in the Courtroom Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings
    ``The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open 
sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the 
majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case 
would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more 
of the parties before the Court.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 45 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### David Garcia et al., Respondents, *v.*George Deibert, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

May 28, 1959.

*Bennett I. Schlessel*for appellant.

*Lloyd I. Isler*for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The courts have consistently held that statutes changing a Statute of Limitations [State Residential Rent Law, § 11, subd. 5; L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd. by L. 1957, ch. 755] will not be given retroactive effect unless such legislative intent is clearly shown *(People*v. *Cohen,*245 N. Y. 419; cf. *Robinson*v. *Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co.,*238 N. Y. 271).

The judgment and order so far as appealed from should be modified to the extent of limiting the recovery to the period commencing July 1, 1957, and as modified affirmed, with costs to respondents.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Hecht and Aurelio, JJ.

Judgment modified, etc.
# C_2011030EN.01000202.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — Ker-Optika Bt. v ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete

(Case C-108/09) (1)

1

(Free movement of goods - Public health - Selling of contact lenses via the Internet - National legislation authorising the sale of contact lenses solely in medical supply shops - Directive 2000/31/EC - Information society - Electronic commerce)

2011/C 30/03

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Baranya Megyei

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ker-Optika Bt.

Applicant:

Defendant: ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 EC and of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) — Marketing of contact lenses on the internet — National rules reserving the sale of contact lenses to shops selling medical supplies

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The national rules relating to the selling of contact lenses fall within the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), since they concern the act of selling such lenses via the Internet. On the other hand, the national rules relating to the supply of contact lenses are not covered by that directive.

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU, and Directive 2000/31, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises the selling of contact lenses only in shops which specialise in medical devices.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  REAUTHORIZING CERTAIN VISA PROGRAMS

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. SAM JOHNSON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 11, 2012

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3245, 
which reauthorizes the E-Verify Program for three years. E-Verify is an 
important tool for employers who want to help ensure they are employing 
legal workers. I believe that there are a few changes that would make 
E-Verify even more effective and user friendly than it already is, that 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) can make without 
being required to do so statutorily.
  Prevention of identity theft in E-Verify is important and USCIS has 
been taking steps aimed at doing so. For instance, they have created an 
E-Verify photo match tool for certain individuals so that an employer 
can match a DHS database photo to the employee standing in front of 
them. I applaud the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for taking 
this step and others, and also urge USCIS to fully explore other 
available identity authentication approaches through pilot programs.
  I also support DHS providing employers with a seamless integration of 
an official, electronic I-9 into E-Verify. The goal of an all-
electronic system, instead of a paper-based I-9, was included in E-
Verify legislation authored by Chairman Smith. Combining E-Verify and 
the I-9 together will be a strong inducement for employers to join E-
Verify.
  I have discussed these changes by DHS with the Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, who has expressed his support.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 13.3





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







I, Patricio Contesse, Chief Executive Officer
of Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. (“SQM”), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Republic
of Chile, 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 Amended Annual Report of SQM on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 such Amended Annual Report of SQM on Form 20-F/A fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SQM.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









|       | /s/ Patricio Contesse G. | 
|------ | ------------------------ | 
|Name:  | Patricio Contesse G.     | 
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer  | 
|Date:  | October 30, 2013         |
# C_2013225EN.01006102.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/61

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2013 — ICF v Commission

(Case T-406/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - World market in aluminium fluoride - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Evidence of the infringement - Rights of defence - Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on fines - Euro-Mediterranean Agreement)

2013/C 225/136

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Industries chimiques du fluor (ICF) (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented: initially by M. van der Woude and T. Hennen and subsequently by P. Wytinck and D. Gillet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, K. Mojzesowicz and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3043 of 25 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81[EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/39.180 — Aluminium fluoride), concerning a worldwide price-fixing and market-sharing cartel on the world aluminium fluoride market and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Industries chimiques du fluor to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Industries chimiques du fluor to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JACKIE SPEIER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for the record that my 
vote against the Holt amendment, Roll No. 504, to H.R. was made in 
error. I support this amendment, which would strike a provision that 
requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a single multi-sale 
environmental impact statement for all of the new areas opened for 
drilling by the underlying bill.

                          ____________________
```