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

**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        BY CEO 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/Robert                  L. Weisman                  |   |
|   | Chief                  Executive Officer and President |   |
|   |                                                   |   |
|   | April                  9, 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 of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart H. Grayston, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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/ STUART H. GRAYSTON                 
|Stuart H. Grayston                     
|President (Principal Executive Officer)
|August 13, 2010
Exhibit 32.2

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 AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas R. McMahon, Vice President and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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/ THOMAS R. MCMAHON                       
|Thomas R. McMahon                           
|Vice President (Principal Financial Officer)
|May 22, 2009
No. 10-6959.

#### Clinton Hill, Petitioner v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1143, 131 S. Ct. 911,

178 L. Ed. 2d 762,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 374.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 409 Fed. Appx. 619.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Morgan K. OBrien, as Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WITNESS the due execution hereof this 15thday of March, 2004.



/s/ Morgan K. OBrienMorgan K. OBrienPresident and Chief Executive Officer




This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original
of this certification required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company, who will retain it and furnish a copy to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 10-7464.

#### Clifton Thomas Talley, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1117, 131 S. Ct. 841,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9820.

178 L. Ed. 2d 572,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 129.
No. 10-5092.

#### Walter J. Himmelreich, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 903, 131 S. Ct. 240,

178 L. Ed. 2d 160,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6388.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 175.
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------




                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350),
the undersigned, Murray P. Fish, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security
Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to
his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 of
the Company (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.



                                        /s/ Murray P. Fish
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Murray P. Fish
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        November 19, 2002
No. 10-448.

#### E-L Enterprises, Inc., Petitioner v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.

562 U.S. 1091, 131 S. Ct. 798,

178 L. Ed. 2d 531,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9470.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.

Same case below, 326 Wis. 2d 82, 785 N.W.2d 409.
Order filed April 17, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00046

- CR

____________ ERIC DEMOND DOUGLAS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1122749



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed February 6, 2014 . Our review has determined
that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain a bill of costs.
The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before May 15, 2014, containing a bill of costs.

PER CURIAM
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 21, 2020

No. 04-19-00318-CV

Leticia R. BENAVIDES,

Appellant

v.

Cristina B. ALEXANDER as permanent guardian of the person of Carlos Y. Benavides, Jr., et 

al.,

Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVQ-000161-D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed in this appeal on June 13, 2019. On 

March 10, 2020, after several volumes of the record were filed, this court was informed that Ms. 

Gay Richey is responsible for preparing the final outstanding volumes (volumes 11, 14, 16, & 

19). After this court issued multiple orders requiring Ms. Richey to file the outstanding volumes 

of the reporter’s record, Ms. Richey has now filed a notice of late record stating the reporter’s 

record was not filed because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the 

reporter’s fee for preparing the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the 

fee. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten 

(10) days of the date of this order that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements 

have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the 

reporter’s fee. Ms. Richey is ordered to file the outstanding volumes of the reporter’s record 

within twenty (20) days of the date appellant files written proof of payment or of arrangements to 

make payment. 

If the record is not received by such date, an order may be issued directing Ms. 

Richey to appear before this court in person and show cause why she should not be held in 

contempt for failing to file the record. The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to

be served on Ms. Richey by certified mail, return receipt requested, or give other personal notice 

of this order with proof of delivery. Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed,” TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c), the 
clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge 

of the 49th Judicial District Court.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
# C_2013225EN.01008202.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/82

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 5 June 2013 — Rubinum v Commission

(Case T-201/13 R)

(Interim relief - Authorisation of feed additives - Regulation on the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Weighing up of interests)

2013/C 225/183

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rubinum SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, G. von Rintelen and B. Schima, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013 of 25 March 2013 concerning the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi (NCIMB 40112/CNCM I-1012) as provided for by Regulations (EC) No 256/2002, (EC) No 1453/2004, (EC) No 255/2005, (EC) No 1200/2005, (EC) No 166/2008 and (EC) No 378/2009 (OJ 2013 L 86, p. 15).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The Order of 15 April 2013 in Case T-201/13 R Rubinum v Commission is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Order of 15 April 2013 in Case T-201/13 R Rubinum v Commission is cancelled.

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2015381EN.01006201.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/62

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 October 2015 — DD v FRA

(Joined Cases F-106/13 and F-25/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - FRA staff - Member of the temporary staff - Career development report - Internal appeal - Accusations of discrimination - Accusations of victimisation within the meaning of Directive 2000/43 - Administrative enquiry - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary penalty - Reprimand - Articles 2, 3, and 11 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Termination of a contract of indefinite duration - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Right to be heard - Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))

(2015/C 381/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DD (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (represented by: M. Kjærum, acting as Agent, and P. Jenkinson, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Case F-106/13: Application for annulment of the decision of the Director of the FRA imposing a disciplinary penalty, in the form of a reprimand, on the applicant.

Case F-106/13

Case F-25/14: Application for annulment of the decision terminating the applicant’s contract and of the decision rejecting his complaint and an application for damages in respect of the non-material and material harm allegedly suffered.

Case F-25/14

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 20 February 2013 by which the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights imposed a reprimand on DD; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 20 February 2013 by which the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights imposed a reprimand on DD;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of 13 June 2013 by which the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights terminated DD’s contract of indefinite duration as a member of the temporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of 13 June 2013 by which the Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights terminated DD’s contract of indefinite duration as a member of the temporary staff;

| 3. | Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases F-106/13 and F-25/14 as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the actions in Joined Cases F-106/13 and F-25/14 as to the remainder;

| 4. | Declares that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is to bear its own costs and orders it to bear the costs incurred by DD. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is to bear its own costs and orders it to bear the costs incurred by DD.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014, p. 46 and OJ 184, 16.6.2014, p. 43.

1

---
No. 10-6205.

#### Job Thykkuttathil, et ux., Petitioners v. United States.

562 U.S. 1092, 131 S. Ct. 795,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9554.

178 L. Ed. 2d 533,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 999.
No. 10-6264.

#### Harry Orlando-Papias, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 973, 131 S. Ct. 488,

178 L. Ed. 2d 309,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8101.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 565.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Diaz, Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 461]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered July 29, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.4
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Steven M. Blondy, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of R.H.Donnelley Inc;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
     a.) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls or procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
     b.) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation;
     c). Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming equivalent functions):
     a.) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
     b.) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 12, 2004 By:  /s/ Steven M. Blondy    Steven M. Blondy    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2014380EN.01001001.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Continental Wind Partners v OHIM Continental Reifen Deutschland (CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS)

(Case T-185/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS - Earlier international figurative mark Continental - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal of registration))

2014/C 380/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Continental Wind Partners LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: S. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2013 (Case R 2204/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH and Continental Wind Partners LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Continental Wind Partners LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Continental Wind Partners LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

1

---