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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bitstream Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his or her knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                                          |  |             
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------
|SIGNATURE           |  | TITLE                                                                    |  | DATE        
|                    |  |                                                                         
|/s/ Anna M. Chagnon |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)      |  | May 17, 2010
|Anna M. Chagnon     |  |                                                                         
|                    |  |                                                                         
|/s/ James P. Dore   |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |  | May 17, 2010
|James P. Dore       |  |                                                                         

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed
incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

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 with the electronic version 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 SEC or its staff upon
request.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9042 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9042

   To amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to 
   prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from issuing certain grants to 
 States or political subdivisions of States that restrict or prohibit 
           indoor and outdoor dining, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 21, 2020

   Mr. Budd introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to 
   prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from issuing certain grants to 
 States or political subdivisions of States that restrict or prohibit 
           indoor and outdoor dining, 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 ``Save our Servers Act''.

SEC. 2. INDOOR AND OUTDOOR DINING RESTRICTION.

    Title II of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 
(42 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 219. INDOOR AND OUTDOOR DINING RESTRICTION.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, during the 
period in which a State, or a political subdivision of such State, has 
passed and is enforcing a law or order restricting or prohibiting 
indoor or outdoor dining at restaurants, the Secretary may not issue a 
grant under section 203(a), 205(b), or 207(a) to such State or a 
political subdivision of such State.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lucia Del Carmen SANCHEZ-AYALA; et al., Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71612

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Rosana Cheung, Attorney, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony John Mes-suri, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lucia Del Carmen Sanchez-Ayala and her daughter, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Sanchez-Ayala failed to establish she was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. *See Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, in the absence of a nexus to a protected ground, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See id.*

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Sanchez-Ayala failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by the government of El Salvador, or with its consent or acquiescence. *See Garcia-Milian v. Holder,*755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2022398EN.01003301.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/33

---

Action brought on 26 August 2022 — GKP v EUIPO — Cristalfarma (TIARA RUBIS)

(Case T-518/22)

(2022/C 398/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: GKP GmbH (Ehrenhausen an der Weinstraße, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cristalfarma Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark TIARA RUBIS — Application for registration No 18 205 571

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2022 in Case R 1878/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the contested decision;

| — | uphold in its entirety paragraph 1 of the operative part of the contested decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold in its entirety paragraph 1 of the operative part of the contested decision; and

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs of the earlier stages of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs of the earlier stages of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of certain services in class 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of certain services in class 35;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of goods in class 5 and certain services. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of goods in class 5 and certain services.

---
# C_2023189EN.01000601.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/6

---

Appeal brought on 8 December 2022 by Shopify Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 12 October 2022 in Case T-222/21, Shopify v EUIPO — Rossi and Others (Shoppi)

(Case C-751/22 P)

(2023/C 189/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Shopify Inc. (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Massimo Carlo Alberto Rossi, Salvatore Vacante and Shoppi Ltd.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2021 (Case R 785/2020-2) (the contested decision); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2021 (Case R 785/2020-2) (the contested decision);

| — | order EUIPO and the interveners to pay the costs, including the costs for the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the interveners to pay the costs, including the costs for the proceedings before the General Court.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 (2) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) hereof.

The Appellant puts forth the following arguments.

The General Court disregarded the evidence of enhanced distinctiveness submitted by the appellant for the United Kingdom for the reason that the contested decision was rendered after the end of the transition period stipulated in Article 127 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (3). The General Court held that the appellant must be able to prohibit the use of later mark not only on its application date but also on the date of the decision of the Board of Appeal. Thus, the General Court held, essentially, that the conditions of a relative ground of refusal in invalidity proceedings must exist at the filing or priority date of the contested trademark and on the date of the decision of EUIPO (i.e. the Cancellation Division or the Board of Appeal).

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 2015 L 341, p. 21).

(3)  OJ 2020 L 29, p. 7.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


I, Bruce M. Goldberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of All American
Semiconductor, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge:

     (1)  that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of All American Semiconductor,
          Inc. for the quarterly period ended on September 30, 2004 filed with
          the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof at File No.
          0-16207 (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)  that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of All American Semiconductor, Inc.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.


Date: November 15, 2004                    /s/ BRUCE M. GOLDBERG
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Bruce M. Goldberg
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<S>                                              <C>              <C>     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS           12-MOS   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1997       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          13,077          18,318
<SECURITIES>                                         0               0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,003           3,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                        68              92
<INVENTORY>                                      2,461           2,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,164          24,499
<PP&E>                                           6,120           5,882
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,197           1,778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,171          33,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,556           7,065
<BONDS>                                          1,138           1,273
<COMMON>                                         1,655           1,604
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0               0
<PREFERRED>                                          0               0
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,218          12,392
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,171          33,095
<SALES>                                         26,134          24,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,134          24,143
<CGS>                                           17,610          18,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,489          11,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   342             137
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 381             847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,688)         (6,390)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0           2,686
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,688)         (3,704)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     609          14,699
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0               0
<CHANGES>                                            0               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,079)         10,995
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.08)            .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.08)            .72
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary financial  information extracted  from the
Statement of Financial  Position for Princeton  Mining  Company at December
31, 2000 (audited)  and the Statement  of Operations  for the  year ended
December 31, 2000 (audited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                             155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   155
<PP&E>                                           2,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       956,914
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,011,639)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,155
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (31,848)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (31,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (31,848)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)








</TABLE>
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000703 05-DEC-2019 07:53 AM
#### Andante LAMONT-GOLDSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Amanda KASCHMITTER; Joanne Mcpheeters; J. Rambo; Does, 1-10, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-35537

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 9, 2018 Seattle, Washington

Filed February 21, 2018

Calvin Roy'Winder, Esquire, Attorney, Wewahitchka, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Emily A. Mac Master, Office of Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Defendants-Appel-lees

Before: M. SMITH and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and GORDON,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Andante Lamont-Goldsby, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations by prison officials. Our review is de novo, *see Albino v. Baca,*747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, *see Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.,*575 F.3d 1040, *7021047 (9th Cir. 2009). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lamont-Goldsby failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Although the alleged acts which form the basis for Lamont-Goldsby’s claims occurred between January 2013 and June 22, 2013, he did not file a grievance until November 6, 2013, long after the thirty-day period had expired. Lamont-Goldsby has shown a genuine issue of material fact as to the availability of the grievance process between June 22 and September 16, 2013, when he was housed in segregation at the North Idaho Correctional Institution and then moved to the Kootenai County jail. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-59, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016). However, he does not dispute that the grievance process was available between September 16 and October 29, 2013, when he was housed at the Reception Diagnostic Unit. *Cf. Nunez v. Duncan,*591 F.3d 1217, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2010) (excusing failure to exhaust administrative remedies when they were rendered effectively unavailable and prisoner “promptly” filed a grievance when it became possible). Lamont-Golds-by*s lack of access to a law library during this period may have prevented him from researching his legal claims, but it did not prevent him from grieving the allegedly unconstitutional acts upon which his claims are based.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2022244EN.01004002.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/40

---

Action brought on 2 May 2022 — Juvin v Parliament

(Case T-241/22)

(2022/C 244/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hervé Juvin (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul decision D-301936 of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022 excluding Mr Hervé Juvin from taking part in election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his parliamentary mandate (2019-2024); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul decision D-301936 of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022 excluding Mr Hervé Juvin from taking part in election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his parliamentary mandate (2019-2024);

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, on the basis of Articles 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, on the basis of Articles 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-196/22, Mariani v Parliament.

---