alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Section
      1350Certificate of Chief Executive Officer




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oasys Mobile, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary E. Ban, the
      Chief Executive Officer 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
      Company.






Date:      
August
              14, 2006
            /s/
              Gary E.
              BanGary E. BanChief Executive
              Officer
# C_2016100EN.01000201.xml

| 16.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 March 2016

(2016/C 100/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1109 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 125,36 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4577 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78358 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2421 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0954 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4800 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,043 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,53 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2889 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4718 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2128 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4877 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4832 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6199 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6709 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5324 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 326,80 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,6117 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2336 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5590 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 638,88 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6023 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,915 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 78,7265 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,004 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,1191 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,8474 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,8283 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1109

JPY

Japanese yen

125,36

DKK

Danish krone

7,4577

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78358

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2421

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0954

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4800

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,043

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,53

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2889

RON

Romanian leu

4,4718

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2128

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4877

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4832

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6199

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6709

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5324

KRW

South Korean won

1 326,80

ZAR

South African rand

17,6117

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2336

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5590

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 638,88

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6023

PHP

Philippine peso

51,915

RUB

Russian rouble

78,7265

THB

Thai baht

39,004

BRL

Brazilian real

4,1191

MXN

Mexican peso

19,8474

INR

Indian rupee

74,8283

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Mallory vs. Mariner.

Judgment for a mortgagor in an action to restrain the mortgagee from proceeding with a foreclosure suit, and compel Mm to discharge the mortgage, is no bar to a subsequent action to recover the *penalty*allowed by statute for the mortgagor’s refusal to execute such discharge,' and the special damages occasioned by such refusal.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Racine*County.

This action was brought in July, 1860, to recover the statutory penalti' of $100, for the refusal pf the defendant to execute a discharge of the mortgage mentioned in the preceding case, and also for actual damages- alleged to have been occasioned by such refusal. The pleadings are stated in the opinion of the court. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the circuit court, for the penalty and for $180.66, special damages.

*K*Mariner, *fro se :*

The circuit judge erred in deciding that the record in the former suit was not a bar or estoppel in this suit. *Duchess of Kingston's Case,*and notes, 1 Smith’s L. C., 417; 9 Wis., 25. It did not matter that in the former action the plaintiff joined a cause of action at law with an equitable cause of *178action. There was no demurrer. *Gary v. Wheeler,*14 Wis., 281.

May 15.

*j' peuit,*for respondent.

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

This was an action brought to recover the penalty and damages for refusing to discharge a mortgage, claimed to have been paid, in pursuance of sec. 46, chap. 86, B. S., 1858. The only defense set up in the answer was a former suit for the same cause of action, in bar. The record of the former suit was introduced, and the only question presented on this appeal is, whether the court below erred in holding that it was not a bar to this suit. We think it very clear that there was no error. The record fully disclosed that the former suit was an equitable action, brought not to recover the penalty and damages allowed by statute for refusing to discharge the mortgage, but to restrain the defendant from proceeding in a foreclosure suit, and to compel him to discharge the mortgage. It is true the same facts were set up in that case that are now set up in this, but it was done for an entirely different purpose, and to establish an entirely different and distinct cause of action. The one was an equitable action to compel a discharge of the mortgage, the other a legal action for a penalty and damages allowed by statute. These two causes of action are quite as distinct since the adoption of the Code as they would have been before. Under the old system they could not have been joined. Under the present they might be perhaps, but the party was not obliged to join them. And it is very apparent that he did not. For although in the equitable action he alleged the same facts, yet he asked only the proper equitable relief, and neither asked nor obtained any judgment for the penalty or the damages authorized by statute. We deem it very clear, therefore, that the former action was no bar to the present; and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
# C_2016309EN.01000102.xml

| 25.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8089 — Randstad/Ausy)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 309/02)

On 16 August 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8089. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8089. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000352789
<NAME>                                         IOMEGA CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-28-1999       JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-27-1999       JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                          89,281            89,281
<SECURITIES>                                         0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  239,201           239,201
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,202            53,202
<INVENTORY>                                    138,400           138,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               502,603           502,603
<PP&E>                                         393,102           393,102
<DEPRECIATION>                                 219,543           219,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 729,943           729,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          304,150           304,150
<BONDS>                                         45,505            45,505
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                 0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                 0
<COMMON>                                       300,060           300,060
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   729,943           729,943
<SALES>                                        348,781           734,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               348,781           734,993
<CGS>                                          273,020           565,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  420,842           803,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (17)              491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,479             4,268
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (72,389)          (71,512)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (25,336)          (25,028)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (47,053)          (46,484)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                 0
<CHANGES>                                            0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (47,053)          (46,484)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.17)            (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)            (0.17)



</TABLE>
Order entered October 20, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01003-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.E.C. AND C.A.C., MINOR CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-51560-00

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s October 16, 2014 motion to extend time to file brief and 

ORDER the brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court October 7, 2014 filed as of the date of this 

order. Appellee shall file his brief no later than November 19, 2014.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
# AC **C CPI Saf** **et y**  **& Health Tr** **aining Thr** **ough June 2011** 

**June 2011 July**  **2011 To** **tal Through July 2011**  Job Description Fully Complete Fully Complete Fully Complete In Progress Instructor Online Instructor Online Instructor Online Started, not finished Applicator 15 43 2 37 83 434 225 Helper 2 10 4 10 24 81 33 Other 15 113 6 17 132 665 336



## Pa **ssing Te**  **st Scor** **es thr** **ough July 2011**  **100% 90**  **- 99%**  **70 -**  **89%** Pe rcent achieving test scores 47% 45% 8% Other 15 113 6 17 132 665 336 Supervisor 3 23 5 15 110 289 271 To tal **35 189**  **17 79**  **349 1469**  **865** 

## To**tal Students Fully Completed Thr** **ough July 2011**  **To tal Students**  **Started or Finished**  **Thr ough**  **July 2011 1818**  **2683**
"{JocS^A ©^-a^s>«i -e3-(pO 

^ STI^M 

UlS. Papqrtinent of 1200 New jersey Avenue, SE 

Ihinsportation Washington, DC 20590 

Office Of the Secretary i 

of Transportation 

Mr. Leo von Scheben, Commissioner January 13, 2010 

Alaska Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities 

4111 Aviation Avenue, 

PO Box 196900 

Anchorage, AK 99519 

Dear Commissioner Scheben: 

Thank you for your letter of December 18 to Assistant Secretary Susan Kurland 

regarding air service at Diomede, Alaska. 

We are pleased to inform you that we have reached agreement with Evergreen 

Helicopter, Inc., to provide subsidized air service at Diomede, Alaska, and a copy of that 

agreement was forwarded to your Deputy, Christine Klein, on January 11 for review. 

While the agreement was only between Evergreen and the Department, it is the first step 

before we issue an order selecting Evergreen to inaugurate air service to Diomede. The 

next step is for the state to concur with the terms and conditions of Evergreen's proposal. 

Once that is done, we will draft an order and forward it to the Assistant Secretary for 

decision. We look forward to resolving any issues that may arise after you review the 

agreement so that air service to Diomede can commence as quickly as possible. 

As is our normal practice, we are placing a copy of this letter in Docket OST-2009-0260. 

Sincerely yours. 

A-^-^oy^-^ ] / y_^- l/ayii.-\ 

Dennis J. DeWny' Chief 

EAS and Domestic Analysis
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Joseph Y. Liu, Chief Executive Officer of Oplink Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




1.The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended July 3, 2011 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company for the periods covered by the Annual Report.




In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 16th day of September, 2011.







By:
/s/ Joseph Y. LiuJoseph Y. LiuChief Executive Officer







This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jason Truman Childress, Appellant

No. 06-19-00125-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

CR1800087). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jason Truman Childress, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 12, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### In the Matter of the Petition of Charles A. Perry for a Writ of *Habeas Corpus.*

Since the abolition of capital punishment in this state, persons charged with murder are in all eases bailable.

APPLICATION for a Writ of *Habeas Corpus.*

The petitioner was imprisoned in the common jail of Wal worth county, under a commitment from a justice of the peace for said county, dated June 27th, 1865, which stated in the usual *form*that he had been charged with the crime of murder committed upon one Shay, and that there was reasonable cause to believe him guilty, &c. The county judge of said county refused an application of the prisoner to he admitted to bail, on the ground that his right to bail was doubtful.

The constitution of this state, sec. 8, Art. I, provides that “ All persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great.” By ch. 103, Laws of 1853, capital punishment is abolished in this state.

*Spooner & Harlcness,*for petitioner.

*A. 0. Babcock,*District Attorney for Walworth county, *contra,*

contended that offenses which were punishable with *677death at the time of the adoption of the constitution of this state, are not rendered bailable by the abolition of that form of punishment, citing *Wilson v. The*State, 1 Wis., 184, and arguing that this principle of interpretation is followed in those cases where this court has held that the constitutional privilege of a trial by jury secures the right to a common law jury of twelve men.

*By the Court,*

Downer, J.

The court are of opinion that since the abolition of capital punishment in this state, persons charged with murder are in all cases bailable.

The motion is granted.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1299

_____________________________

CARL I. LITTLE, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

February 29, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Court denies the petition alleging ineffective assistance 

of appellate counsel on the merits.

B.L. THOMAS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Carl I. Little, Jr., pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      In connection with the periodic report of Delta Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Hugh Miller, Chief
Executive Officer 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: March 29, 2004.

                                        /s/ HUGH MILLER
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Hugh Miller
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2016306EN.01000201.xml

| 23.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 306/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 306/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8139 — Onex/Paine & Partners/Wireco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 306/03)

On 16 August 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8139. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8139. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

February 3, 1939 

bir. c. &n-tt Potter 

county Attorney 

San ratricio County 

Yinton, Texas 

Dear &I-. Potter: 

our letter of 

you ,as Ho have interney Osneral or Texae 

aelsat an aeeeemoot , 

L8giiaturs or iszs, ind8- 

Articile a958 

reasurer and an eesessof end 

provides: 

%epen%snt School District WIN created by 

.slatur8, by A& of the 97th Lfigislaturs, 

921, House Bill 66, found on page 1259, 

led See&on, and said Eill,amng other things, 

The bo@rCot trustees of s&i% Gregory Indepen%sae 

School Distriot 8r.8 hereby veatsd and Oharged with al1 

the rights, pm8rs, privileges and duties Bonf8rrt3d tsttd 

imposed by the CI8neral Laws of this Stat8 upon trustee8 

of independant school districts areated an% organlaed 
k. C. Burtt Pottsr, February 8, lOJO, Page E 

under the Oeneral Law8 OS this Stats." 

This Independent liohool Distriat, in our opinion, 

by virtue OS the authority above quoted has authority by a 

vote of a majority of the mabers OS its Board of Tr@ees 

to select a tax assessor ana ooll8otor, and suoh assessor and 

aolleotor can be a person other than th8 county tax assessor and 

collector. 

Youre very truly
Exhibit
32.1




Certification
of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Chip
Brian, President and Chief Executive Officer of Comtex News Network, Inc. (the
“Company”) certifies in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has
reviewed the Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2008 and that to the best of his knowledge:




1.
            the
      report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            the
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




The
purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
1350 of the United States code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.




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.






May
      12, 2008
            /s/ Chip BrianChip
      BrianPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer