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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned,
certifies that to the best of his knowledge (1) this Annual Report of CNL Macquarie Global Growth Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2010 and 2009.



|                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                       
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Robert A. Bourne                                                  
|Date: March 2, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | ROBERT A. BOURNE Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
THIRD AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE
AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
      Environmental Contingency
 Entire Agreement
 Counterparts
 Remainder of page intentionally left blank




---



##### 



SELLER:
    West Oahu Mall Associates, LLC,
A Hawaii limited liability companyBy:
    /s/ Joseph DaneshgarName:
    Joseph DaneshgarTitle:BUYER:
    TNP AQUISITIONS, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability companyBy:
    /s/ Steve CoreaName:
    Steve Corea




---



##### 



CONSENT OF ESCROW HOLDER
  DATED:
    
    
    
    
    
    TITLE GUARANTY ESCROW SERVICES, INC(Escrow Holder)By:Its:
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 Annual Report of ETFS Gold Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Quigley,
principal financial officer of ETF Securities USA LLC, the Sponsor of the
Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Trust.

|                                       |   | 
|-------------------------------------- | - | 
|/s/ Thomas
 Quigley                    | *
|                                       |  
|Thomas
 Quigley**                      |  
|Chief
 Financial Officer and Treasurer |  
|(principal
 financial officer)         |  
|                                       |  
|Date: March 15,
 2011                  |  

|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|*  | The
 originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
 Sponsors offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
|   |                                                                                                                                                         
|** | The
 Registrant is a trust and Mr. Quigley is signing in his capacity as an
 officer of ETF Securities USA LLC, the sponsor of the Trust.               

---
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-478/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords in Celtec Ltd v John Astley and Others (1)

(Directive 77/187/EEC - Article 3(1) - Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings - Transferor's rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment or from an employment relationship existing on the date of a transfer - Meaning of ‘date of a transfer’)

(2005/C 182/22)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-478/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the House of Lords (United Kingdom), made by decision of 10 November 2003, received at the Court on 17 November 2003, in the proceedings between Celtec Ltd and John Astley and Others — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, in which it ruled:

----

(1)OJ C 21of 24.01.2004.

----
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3897 — WestLB/NordLB/Shinsei/Flowers/JV)

(2005/C 224/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 5 September 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
# Úradný vestník C 211A/30.

| | ISSN 1725-5236 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 211A |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 4830. augusta 2005 |

ISSN 1725-5236

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 211A

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 4830. augusta 2005

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Oznámenia |
| | Komisia |
| 2005/C 211A/1 | Oznámenie o voľnom mieste výkonného riaditeľa Európskeho úradu pre bezpečnosť potravín — (trieda A*15) (článok 29 ods. 2 služobného poriadku) — KOM/2005/10007 | 1 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

III   Oznámenia

Komisia

2005/C 211A/1

Oznámenie o voľnom mieste výkonného riaditeľa Európskeho úradu pre bezpečnosť potravín — (trieda A*15) (článok 29 ods. 2 služobného poriadku) — KOM/2005/10007

1

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

III Oznámenia

Komisia

| 30.8.2005 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CA 211/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2005

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CA 211/1

---

Oznámenie o voľnom mieste

VÝKONNÉHO RIADITEĽA

Európskeho úradu pre bezpečnosť potravín

(trieda A*15)

(článok 29 ods. 2 služobného poriadku)

KOM/2005/10007

(2005/C 211 A/01)

Európsky úrad pre bezpečnosť potravín hľadá výkonného riaditeľa.

Uchádzači musia byť občanmi jedného z členských štátov Európskej únie.

Výkonného riaditeľa vymenuje správna rada úradu zo zoznamu kandidátov vybraných a navrhnutých Európskou komisiou. Plat a podmienky zamestnania zodpovedajú podmienkam stanoveným pre triedu A*15 Služobného poriadku úradníkov Európskych spoločenstiev. Komisia a úrad uplatňujú politiku rovnakých príležitostí.

Náplň práce, formuláre prihlášky a pokyny na zasielanie prihlášok možno získať na tejto internetovej adrese:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_en.htm

alebo

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/efsa/index_en.htm

Uzávierka prijímania prihlášok je 5. októbra 2005 (podrobnosti možno nájsť v pokynoch k prihláške).

---
EX PARTE Harold Clarence FROST

CR-15-1096

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 26, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

Summary Calendar

No. 00-51091

USDC No. DR-00-229-ALL-FB

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANGEL GONZALEZ-GALLEGOS,

Defendant - Appellant;

______________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-51198

USDC No. DR-00-CR-383-ALL

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARCELINO CENTENO-HERRERA,

Defendant - Appellant;

_____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-51323

USDC No. DR-00-CR-220-1

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBINO OCHOA-DE LA FUENTE,

Defendant - Appellant;
* 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.

2

__________________________

________________

Consolidated with

No. 01-50177

USDC No. EP-00-CR-1635-ALL-H

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SERGIO ORDUNA-ALVARADO, also known as Raul Ontiveros, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

--------------------

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

--------------------

October 10, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(A) provides, among other

things, that before imposing sentence in a criminal case, a

district court must “verify that the defendant and defendant’s

counsel have read and discussed” the defendant’s presentence

report. The appellants in these consolidated cases argue that as

to alleged violations of this requirement to which a defendant

failed to object, this court should not review for plain error or

harmless error, but should automatically remand for resentencing.

United Stats v. Esparza-Gonzalez, __ F.3d __, 2001 WL 1135317 (5th

Cir. Sep. 26, 2001), rejects their argument and concludes that this
3

court reviews for plain error an alleged violation of the

verification requirement to which the defendant failed to object

below.

The appellants did not object in the district court to

the verification requirement violations that they now allege

occurred. As in Esparza-Gonzalez, none of the appellants argues

that he was prejudiced by any such violation or even that he did

not read or discuss with his counsel his presentence report.

Appellants have not demonstrated plain error. See id.

The appellants’ other arguments are foreclosed by circuit

precedent and, as they acknowledge, are raised only in order to

preserve them for Supreme Court review. The judgments are

AFFIRMED. We commend counsel for their lucidly argued briefs.
Harry Allen ATHA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2593

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 18, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Richard John JACKMAN, Appellant, v. Miranda Sue JACKMAN, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3728

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Anthony James DANNOLFO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-197

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 22, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                 7,840,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,949
<PP&E>                                          14,032
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,187,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,313,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,870,843
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,500,000
<COMMON>                                       347,947
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,800,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,313,336
<SALES>                                        407,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               407,064
<CGS>                                          471,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,772,342
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             234,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,365,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,365,278)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,209,379
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,574,657)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
Bobby MABE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0090

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
# OAR Box 1830

Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 64 ) IV-C-30 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:54 AM Sheet 64 of 232 p. 1P. 2



## '

## -ta\ \ . \*9/>h *UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO NAGENC Y l'ml(+f WASHINGTON , D.C
. 20460 JA N I 5 !98 8

OFFIC E O P AI RAN D RADIATIO N

Honorabl e Joh

n G . Rowlan

d Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Rowland : Thi s i n respons e t o you r Decembe r 5 , 198 7 lette r relaying the concern s o f on e o f your constituent s regardin g EPA' s regulator

yproposa l t o requir e onboar d canister s o n ne w vehicle s t o contro l refuelin g emission s an

d t o contro l th e volatilityo f gasolin e sol d during the summertime . T o assis t yo u wit hyour responses , I hav e enclose d a cop yo f ou r •* proposal s fo r you r review . Page s 31177-3118 2 explai n EPA's ? rational e fo r proposing onboard control s an d page s 31285-3128 8 > explai n EPA' s rational e fo r proposing gasolin e volatilit y control . I f yo u woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f ou r analysis , pleas e contac t Phi l Carlso n o r Tad Wyso r o f the Standard s Developmen t an

d Suppor t Branc ho f th e Emissio n Contro l Technolog

yDivision , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , Ann Arbor , M I 4810 5 (FTS 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270) . Than k yo u fo r your letter . W e wil l plac e th e lette r fro

m Norber t E . Mitchel l Compan yin ou r publi c docke t an d full y conside r thei r comment s i n the nex t phas e o f our rulemaking process . Sincerel y yours t . . •. . . J.:yJxx

OX'A'llxJ

nil LCiv'AL D E . ZINGE R Richard D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosure s
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. LAS NORIAS CATTLE COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 10549.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1943.

Judgment Amended Feb. 6. 1943.

Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and W. C. Peticolas, Sp. Atty., Department of Justice, of El Paso, Tex., for appellant.

T. Hardie, of El Paso, Tex., for appellee.

Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In the above numbered and entitled cause comes the appellant, The United States of America, by its counsel, Norman M. Littell, Esq., and W. C. Peticolas, Esq., and the appellees, Las Norias Cattle Company and the S. E. Newman Estate, by their counsel, T. *864Hardie, Esq., .and file & joint stipulation that the judgment of the District Court in this case be reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment for the United States against Las Norias Cattle Co. in the amount of $1,062.52 with interest at 6 per centum per annum from June 2, 1941 (the date when the deposited amounts were withdrawn), until paid, and to enter judgment against the S. E. Newman Estate in the amount of $640 with interest at 6 per centum per annum from June 2, 1941 (the date when the deposited amount was withdrawn) until paid.

Pursuant to said stipulation, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the District Court in this case be reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment for the United States against Las Norias Cattle Co. in the amount of $1,-062.52 with interest at 6 per centum per annum from June 2, 1941 (the date when the deposited amounts were withdrawn), until paid, and to enter judgment against the S. E. Newman Estate in the amount of $640 with interest at 6 per centum per annum from June 2, 1941 (the date when the deposited amount was withdrawn) until paid.

Amended Judgment.

On further consideration of the stipulation and amended stipulation that the judgment of the District Court in this case be reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment for the United States against Las Norias Cattle Co. in the amount of $1,062.52 with interest at 6 per centum per annum from June 2, 1941 (the date when the deposited amounts were withdrawn), until paid, and to enter judgment against the S. E. Newman Estate in the amount of $640 with interest at 6 per centum per annum from June 2, 1941 (the date when the deposited amount was withdrawn), until paid;

It is ordered that the judgment heretofore entered by this Court on January 26, 1943, be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to show that the parties did not agree that interest should run from June 2, 1941 (the dates when the deposited amounts were withdrawn), until paid, but that the Court so held, as a matter of law on the facts agreed to by the parties. This does not alter the effect of the judgment heretofore entered, but alters the recital therein that it was entered entirely pursuant to stipulation.
Oscar PEREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-589

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 2, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Beta Music Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his 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 operation of the Company.





3. 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.






Date: April 14, 2014By:
/s/  Jim EnnisJim EnnisChief Executive Officer
From: Walt Stevenson/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Frank Behan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian Shrager/RTP/U SEPA/US@EPA, wayland.robertj @epa.gov, Nick Hutson/R

Date: 08/04/2010 12:21 PM Subject: A CI and Dioxin Generation / Cement NESHAP Comment

Keith

As I mentioned yesterday, I am not familiar with the Chang and Linz

. paper that was referenced. It may be some type of lab study.

As I also mentioned yesterday, all of t he data we have collected (or that has been discussed at conferences I have attached) show the addition of activated carbon injection (ACI) reduces dioxin emissi ons. The attached paper was prepared in the 1990s and shows ACI data from commercial applic ations at MWC plants in the US and Europe, medwaste incinerator s, and hazardous waste inciner ators. All of the plants

show increased dioxin control with the use of ACI. Figure 3 (page14; total dioxin) and Figure 4 (page 15; TEQ dioxin) shows the addi tion of ACT increased dioxin control by 75% or more (polishing), beyond what the scrubber achieved alone.

Walt
Echo Automotive Inc.; 10-KA

EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Principal 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 this Annual Report of Echo Automotive Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William D. Kennedy, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

|                       |                               
|---------------------- | ------------------------------
|Dated: April
 16, 2013 | /s/ William
 D. Kennedy       
|                       |                               
|                       | William D.
 Kennedy           
|                       | Chief
 Executive Officer      
|                       | (Principal
 Executive Officer)
|                       |                               
|                       |                               

4

---
Jesse ENRIQUEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-3905

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





BIOCANCELL THERAPEUTICS INC.





FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010





PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED





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








I am the Chief Executive Officer of BioCancell Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-K”).





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.














Date: March 11, 2011/s/ URI DANONUri DanonChief Executive Officer