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



EXHIBIT 32 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 Onyx Acceptance Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
W. Hall, President, CEO and Principal 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 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/ JOHN W. HALLName: John W. HallTitle: President, CEO and Principal Executive OfficerDate: August 12, 2004
 This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
and not for any other purpose. 1




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32 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 Onyx Acceptance Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don
P. Duffy, EVP, CFO and Principal Financial 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 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/ DON P. DUFFYName: Don P. DuffyTitle: Executive Vice President,CFO and Principal Financial OfficerDate: August 12, 2004
 This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
and not for any other purpose. 2
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 769 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 769

   To amend title 11 of the United States Code to limit the value of 
certain real and personal property that the debtor may elect to exempt 
           under State or local law, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 9 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

   Mr. Kohl introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 11 of the United States Code to limit the value of 
certain real and personal property that the debtor may elect to exempt 
           under State or local law, and for other purposes.
    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 ``Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    Section 522 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A) by inserting ``subject to 
        subsection (n),'' after ``(2)(A)'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(n) As a result of electing under subsection (b)(2)(A) to exempt 
property under State or local law, the debtor may not exempt an 
aggregate interest of more than $100,000 in value in real or personal 
property that the debtor or a dependent of the debtor uses as a 
residence, in a cooperative that owns property that the debtor or a 
dependent of the debtor uses as a residence, or in a burial plot for 
the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Kenneth Carlos HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Commonwealth of Virginia Director of the Division of Correction, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7136

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 22, 2018

Kenneth C. Hall, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*214PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Carlos Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 15 - 00227 - CR HARRISON HOOD, APPEL LANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court at Law No . 2

Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012 - 471,374, Honorable Drue Farmer, Presiding



### October 21 , 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Harrison Hood , appealed his conviction for the offense of driving while intoxicated. Appellant was sentenced to 3 days ’ confinement in the Lubbock County J ail. On October 14 , 20 15, appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss. Because the motion meets the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), and this Court has not delivered its decision prior to receiving it, the motion is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed. Having dismissed the appeal at2

appellant ’ s request, no motion for rehearing will be entert ained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<LEGEND>
  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
  unaudited balance sheet of Lucent at March 31, 1999 and the unaudited
  consolidated statement of income for the six month period ended March 31, 1999
  and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
  The financial data schedule reflects the two-for-one split of Lucent's common
  stock which became effective on April 1, 1999.
  </LEGEND>
         
  <S>                             <C>
  <PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
  <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1999
  <PERIOD-START>                       OCT-1-1998
  <PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1999
  <CASH>                                      792
  <SECURITIES>                                  0
  <RECEIVABLES>                             9,101
  <ALLOWANCES>                                349
  <INVENTORY>                               4,332
  <CURRENT-ASSETS>                         17,774
  <PP&E>                                   12,686
  <DEPRECIATION>                            6,935
  <TOTAL-ASSETS>                           32,840
  <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    11,562
  <BONDS>                                   3,716
  <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
  <PREFERRED>                                   0
  <COMMON>                                     27
  <OTHER-SE>                                9,024
  <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             32,840
  <SALES>                                  17,484
  <TOTAL-REVENUES>                         17,484
  <CGS>                                     8,725
  <TOTAL-COSTS>                             8,725
  <OTHER-EXPENSES>                          2,109
  <LOSS-PROVISION>                             13
  <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          173
  <INCOME-PRETAX>                           2,826
  <INCOME-TAX>                                956
  <INCOME-CONTINUING>                       1,870
  <DISCONTINUED>                                0
  <EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
  <CHANGES>                                 1,308
  <NET-INCOME>                              3,178
  <EPS-PRIMARY>                              1.19
  <EPS-DILUTED>                              1.16
          
  
</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 302/19 A

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 302 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5919 August 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 302

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5919 August 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 302/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 302/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 302/02 | State aid — Belgium — State aid SA.38393 (2016/C) (ex 2015/E) — Ports taxation in Belgium — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2016/C 302/03 | State aid — France — State aid SA.38398 (2016/C) (ex 2015/E) — Ports taxation in France — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 23 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 302/02

State aid — Belgium — State aid SA.38393 (2016/C) (ex 2015/E) — Ports taxation in Belgium — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

5

2016/C 302/03

State aid — France — State aid SA.38398 (2016/C) (ex 2015/E) — Ports taxation in France — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

23

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting;
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
controls over financial reporting.
 Dated: December 22, 2009
    By:
    /s/ David Bruce HongDavid Bruce HongChief Financial Officer
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 Annual Report of 310 Holdings, Inc; (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nicole Wright, 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 2001,
      that:





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





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





Dated:
      March 25, 2008





/s/
                Nicole WrightNicole
                Wright,Chief
                Executive Officer
| 1. | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of JBI Inc. |

| Date: November 6, 2013 | By:    | /s/ Richard Heddle               |   |
|------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Richard Heddle                        |   |
|                   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 72 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 72

   Expressing support for the nation and people of Japan and deepest 
condolences for the losses suffered as the result of the earthquake of 
                           January 17, 1995.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

Mr. Bingaman (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dole, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
   Pell, and Mr. Robb) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing support for the nation and people of Japan and deepest 
condolences for the losses suffered as the result of the earthquake of 
                           January 17, 1995.

Whereas on the morning of January 17, 1995 a devastating and deadly earthquake 
        shook the cities of Kobe and Osaka, Japan killing more than 5,000 people 
        injuring more than 25,000 and leaving more than 300,000 temporarily 
        homeless;
Whereas the earthquake of January 17, 1995 has left more than 46,440 buildings 
        in ruin, destroyed highways, train lines and other infrastructure and 
        has caused losses of as much as $80 billion in Kobe alone;
Whereas the tradition of strength, courage, determination, and community of the 
        people of Japan has been displayed time again by the citizens of Kobe 
        and Osaka and, indeed, all of Japan since the earthquake and has served 
        as an inspiration to all of the world;
Whereas the nations and people of the United States and Japan share a strong, 
        decades old history of friendship and mutual interests and respect; and
Whereas the people of the United States, having suffered a similar tragedy 
        almost a year ago to the day of the Kobe and Osaka earthquake, share in 
        the pain and hope of the people of Japan: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,
            (1) The Senate expresses its deepest sympathies to the 
        nation of Japan and the citizens of Kobe and Osaka for the 
        tragic losses suffered as a result of the earthquake of January 
        17, 1995.
            (2) The Senate expresses its support to the people of Japan 
        as they continue their noble efforts to rebuild their cities 
        and their lives.
            (3) The Senate expresses its friendship to the people of 
        Kobe and Osaka and pledges its support for their efforts in the 
        face of this disaster.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019230EN.01004402.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

(Case T-466/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 230/55)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 (Case R 1359/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Gomez GARZA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50133 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 14, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mara Asya Blatt, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Andrew Kuchera, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mark Garza, Jr., appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for unlawfully possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. The district court sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

Garza challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he constructively possessed a firearm. We review the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal *de novo,*asking '“whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, *any*rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” *United States v. Zamora,*661 F.3d 200, 209 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).

Officers encountered Garza and two other men inside a house where officers also found three loaded firearms. The government presented testimony that Garza admitted that he was a prospective member of the Texas Syndicate gang. One of the other men was a lieutenant in the same gang. Garza stated that the men were staying at the house together for protection because one of them had been attacked recently by a rival gang. Garza stated that he stayed in the middle bedroom, where two loaded handguns were found under the bed—one on each side. Thus, there was sufficient evidence that Garza intended to exercise control over *208one of the loaded firearms found under each side of the bed in his room. *See id.*at 209; *see also Henderson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1780, 1784, 191 L.Ed.2d 874 (2015).

Garza contends that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that mere presence in an area where a crime is being committed is insufficient to establish guilt. We review for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Simkanin,*420 F.3d 397, 410 (5th Cir. 2005). “[A]n instruction requiring a finding of intent to exercise dominion or control over the contraband, as here, obviates the need for a separate mere presence instruction.” *United States v. Prudhome,*13 F.3d 147, 150 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, “the instructions actually given fairly and adequately cover” the issue of constructive possession. *Simkanin,*420 F.3d at 410.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.