alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        Section #1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (“Form 10-Q”) of Galaxy
        Nutritional Foods, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2007
        as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
        Michael
        E. Broll, 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
        Form
        10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.




| |                                                                                           |                                       
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------
| |                                                                                           | /s/
                  Michael E. Broll
| | Michael
                  E. Broll                                                       
| | Chief
                Executive Officer
                August
                  14, 2007
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 on Form 10-Q (“Form 10-Q”) of Galaxy
      Nutritional Foods, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30,
      2007
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
      Michael E. Broll, 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
      Form
      10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


/s/ Michael
              E. BrollMichael
              E. BrollChief Executive Officer
              November 14,
                2007
# C_2022311EN.01002101.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/21

---

Action brought on 4 July 2022 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB

(Case T-392/22)

(2022/C 311/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Conféderation nationale du Crédit Mutuel (Paris, France) and the 25 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2022/18 of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of 2022 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2022/18 of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of 2022 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, (1) the Implementing Regulation (2) and the Delegated Regulation (3) inapplicable:






  — | Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, (1) the Implementing Regulation (2) and the Delegated Regulation (3) inapplicable:

—

Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;

| — | Articles 4(2), 5,6, 7 and 20 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 4(2), 5,6, 7 and 20 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;

| — | Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-391/22, Société générale and Others v SRB.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation No 806/2014 with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59 with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).

---
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

238) IV-E-113 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:59 PM Sheet 238 of 242 
01-24-94 04:39PM FROM EPA RDSD ANH'YRBOR" '^TO 17202-26H011 P001/003 P.2 

\V*E-U3 

-^ t (993 

MBMORANTCITM 

TO» onboard W«£uelxag Emission control Docket 

FROM: Steven Sl^vm-man, Office of General Counsel S$ 

RE: Meeting with Industry Officials, Peoember 22, 1993 

On Dec«mher 22. 19¥3, offjciials of Pord, GM, Chryaler and 

che American Automobile Manufacturers Aflcociation mat with KPA 

officials regarding the status ot the rulemaking regarding 

onboard emission controls, fln attendance iiet is attached, Tne 

t-Jiief focus of tha n«et.ing was whether an onboard reauirenem: 

ahould apply to trucks {both UJVs and HDTs), and if so, when. 

GM (Srttu Leonard) argued at snmn length that there uhovld 

be no onboard requirement, for trucks, The argument goes that 

Staqe II systems will be in place anyway by 1998 and these 

systems will provide adequate control of tru«k _ refualiug 

emissions in nonattainment areas. BPA (Dick Wilson) indicated 

that ou* initial view, aa ejqpresaed in the recent FR notices and 

t.h« Ann Arbor public hearing, io that trucks aucount for a 

substantial portion of refueling eraLsaJons and eo warrant, 

control, and that it does not. make Sfcn9e to have two types Of 

systems tor controlling refueling emissions. Since onboard 

controls* for trucks arc considered)!y more cost-effective (and 

more efficient) than Stage II controls (whlciii controlo wouj.d, 

moreover, be redundant for cars) th* staff's inclination is to 

requixia onboard controls tt.*r trucks as well as cars. 

All u£ the industry representatives argued that there 

should bo a longer 3«ad time than Initial application in the 1998 

model year. They indicated that in a time of downsizing, they 

bsvu limited resources to design systems. The problem, in their 

view, is exacerbaLed becauao of numerous other rcqulatory< 

requirements take effect during roughly the same tlm« period. In 

addition, none of the mawufacturera Have devoted much effort to 

this point to onboard systems for trucks, because the chief focus 

of their efforte have been Cor cars. "Maey prefer that any leadtime requirement follow the phase-in for wars. 

GH and vord a1«o noted that they produce most ot the heavy 

trucks and so the 1908 M5f lead time effects them 

disproportionately. All of the manufacturers «aid that it was 

not clear that an onboard system for txueks would toe integrated 

with evaproratlvo controls, ao that extra engineering effort 

could he involved. The manufacturers a"! no reiterated the 

concerns they had voiced at the public hearing about onboard 

controls on inconqplete vehicles. 

cc; Don Zinger 

Gleru Pasavant 

.aKwwattsKfLEasS?. 

— uw^V*»5 tt -TPmlY Sstz3tnz& 

J7J -IVJLJ.IWSMWH1. Xv a 

(aril co Mgu w»«<» 

LVR D0CKE1_.
#### Anthony Grant JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-15100 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 4, 2018)

Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant

Anthony Grant Jackson, Pro Se

Yvette Rhodes, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Karin Bethany Hoppmann, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Emmett Jackson Boggs, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Respondent-Appellee

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Grant Jackson appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. On appeal, Jackson argues that he does not have three qualifying Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), predicate offenses.1

In a section 2255 proceeding, we review legal issues, de novo and factual findings for clear error. *United States v. Walker,*198 F.3d 811, 813 (11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). A district court’s determination that a conviction qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA is reviewed de novo. *United States v. Gandy,*710 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

We have recently reaffirmed that Florida armed robbery qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause. *See United States v. Fritts,*841 F.3d 937, 942 (11th Cir. 2016). We have also, held that Florida resisting arrest with violence is a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause. *See United States v. Hill,*799 F.3d 1318, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). A “prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc.” *United States v. Archer,*531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008).

Here, the district court did not err by denying Jackson’s § 2255 motion. Jackson has a prior conviction for Florida armed robbery and a prior conviction for Florida resisting arrest with violence, both of which qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA’s elements clause based on our *955binding precedent.2 To the extent that Jackson asserts that those decisions were wrongly decided, we remain bound by those holdings until they are overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc. Thus, combined with his “serious drug offense” predicate offense, Jackson has three ACCA qualifying predicate offenses.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The United States has waived its defense, of procedural default, so we do not discuss it here,

2

. Jackson also has a conviction for delivery of cocaine, and he does not challenge that it qualifies as a serious drug offense,
# C_2023164EN.01004002.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2023 — Zelmotor v EUIPO — B&B Trends (zelmotor)

(Case T-194/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark zelmotor - No genuine use of the mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 164/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zelmotor sp. z o.o. (Rzeszów, Poland) (represented by: M. Rumak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: B&B Trends, SL (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 February 2022 (Case R 927/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zelmotor sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by B&B Trends, SL; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zelmotor sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by B&B Trends, SL;

| 3. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

---
#### Barbara L. COMBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR JP ALT 2006-SI; Surety Trustees, LLC, as substitute Trustee, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1891

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 28, 2018

Decided: March 9, 2018

Henry W. McLaughlin, III, LAW OFFICE. OF HENRY MCLAUGHLIN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Andrew B. Pittman, Allison Melton, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Abby K. Moynihan, MCCABE, WEIS-BERG *&*CONWAY, LLC, Laurel, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Barbara L. Combs seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing, without prejudice, Count One of her civil complaint, and dismissing the remainder of the complaint with prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The district court stated that the identified deficiencies in Count One of Combs’ complaint may be remedied through the filing of an amended complaint with additional factual details supporting the claim. Therefore, we conclude that the order Combs seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Combs to file an amended complaint as to *263Count One.* 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 AND REMANDED*

*

 Any challenge to the district court's dismissal of Counts Two and Three may be made following a final order on Combs’ amended complaint, if she files one. We leave to the district court whether to consolidate Combs’ later-filed complaint, No. 1:17-00872-LO-IDD, with any amended complaint in this case, or whether to follow some other course of action as to No. 1:17-00872-LO-IDD.
#### Lancaster City Annexation Case

June 26, 1953:

(No. 3).

Argued May 26, 1953.

Before Steen, C. J., Stearns, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

Appeal, No. 202,

*William B. Arnold,*for appellants.

*Bernard M. Zimmerman,*City Solicitor, with him *John B. Bengier,*Assistant City Solicitor, for appellee.

*Paul A. Mueller,*for petitioning property owner, appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Musmanno,

In this case the City of Lancaster, by ordinance No. 28-1952, annexed 3.713 acres of uninhabited land owned by the Armstrong Cork Company,: and lying' contiguous to the City’s existing boundaries. The Township of Manheim, the Manheim School District, tax collector and an individual taxpayer of the Township appealed to *543the Quarter Sessions Court, alleging, inter alia, that the annexation and related apportionment-of-property- and-indebtedness provisions of the Third Class City Code under which the ordinance was enacted were unconstitutional.

The lower court held a hearing, but before it received the transcribed testimony thereof, the status of Manheim Township was changed, as of January 5, 1953, from a second-class township to a first-class township. On appellants’ motion, the record was reopened to receive evidence of this change of status.

The lower court thereafter sustained the constitutionality of the 1931 Third Class City Law and 1951 Third Class City Code under which the annexation ordinance was enacted, and held that the change of the status of Manheim Township during pendency of the appeal did not invalidate the annexation; and it dismissed the appeal. This appeal followed.

The questions raised in this appeal have been decided in the preceding two cases.1

The order of the court below is, therefore, affirmed, with costs on the appellants.

1

*Lancaster City Annexation Case (No. 1),*374 Pa. 529; *Lancaster City Annexation Case (No. 2),*374 Pa. 537.
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 Beverly Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jonathan Roylance, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350,
as added by ss. 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 as of and for
the period covered by


the
Report.





Date: April
      15, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Jon
      RoylanceJon
      RoylancePresident,
      Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director
      (Principal Executive, Financial, and Accounting Officer)






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.
EX-10.29





 Exhibit 10.29 

[Caribou Biosciences, Inc. Letterhead] 

Confidential 
 June 14, 2019 

Steve Kanner, Ph.D. 
 22 Yankee Hill 

Oakland, CA 94618 
 Dear Steve: 

In light of your contributions to the Company over the past year, the Board of Directors has approved an increase in your base salary to $355,000 effective
July 1, 2019. Your new target bonus will be 35% effective for the 2019 bonus payment. 
 Thank you for your strategic leadership and continued service
to Caribou. I’m excited to continue making significant progress with you. 
  

	
	Regards,
	
	 /s/ Rachel E. Haurwitz

	
	Rachel E. Haurwitz, Ph. D.
	President and CEO
**Exhibit 32.02**

**SCANA      CORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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/Kevin                B. Marsh                                                |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Kevin                B. Marsh                                                   |   |
| Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         275,987
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,313,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                   217,415
<INVENTORY>                                    12,270,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,772,734
<PP&E>                                         1,742,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                 341,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 19,160,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,845,563
<BONDS>                                        632,152
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    20
<COMMON>                                       999
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,487,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   19,160,976
<SALES>                                        28,278,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          22,001,443
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,914,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             633,205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                729,471
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            729,471
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   729,471
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.07
        

</TABLE>
<Page> 1


                                  Exhibit 23.2

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

    We hereby consent to the references to our firm, in the context in which
they appear, and to our reserve estimates as of January 1, 2010, included in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pyramid Oil Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2009, as well as in the notes to the financial statements
included therein.  We also hereby consent (1) to the incorporation by
reference of the references to our firm, in the context in which they appear,
and to our reserve estimates as of January 1, 2010, into Pyramid Oil Company's
previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-163885), and (2)
to the filing of our report dated February 23, 2010 as an exhibit to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pyramid Oil Company.

MHA PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS, LLC

By:  /s/ Alan A. Burzlaff
        -----------------
        Alan A. Burzlaff
        President MHA California

Bakersfield, California
March 24, 2010