alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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   The undersigned, Ratree Yabamrung, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. the annual report on Form 10-K of SOEFL Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (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 SOEFL Inc.  Date: April 6, 2011.  By: /s/ KOTCHAPORN BOUSING Kotchaporn Bousing Secretary and Director  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 within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to SOEFL Inc. and will be retained by SOEFL Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Bryan FLOWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-1572

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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 eCrypt Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 (the Report), I, Brad Lever, Chief Financial 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 Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. July 1, 2011 /s/ Brad Lever, Chief Financial Officer
#### GRAVES v. NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RY. CO.

No. 10383.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 9, 1942.

*129Richard U. Simon, of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.

Luther Hudson and Fred Korth, both of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON and McCORD, Circuit Judges, and KENNERLY, District Judge.

McCORD, Circuit Judge.

The appellee railway company recovered judgment for $1,238.03 against Walter Graves, appellant, . for freight undercharges on 45 shipments of live stock from San Antonio, Texas, to Nashville, Tennessee. The shipments were made “freight collect” by Graves, the owner, to commission agents in Nashville. On delivery, the commission agents paid the demanded freight charges, sold the cattle, deducted the freight charges and commission fees, and made settlement with Graves. On appeal no issue is raised as to the validity or amounts of the undercharge claims.

Appellant contends: (1) That the railway company agreed to collect the freight charges from the consignees, that deliveries were made to the consignees upon payment of the demanded freight charges, and that, therefore, he as shipper is not liable for the undercharges; and (2) that as shipper he was liable secondarily, if at all, and that the court erred in rendering judgment against him in the absence of a showing that the railway company had exhausted its remedies against the consignees.

 Each of the bills of lading contained a section providing that the consignor was liable for the freight and all other lawful charges, “except that if the consignor stipulates, by signature, in the space provided for that plirpose on the face of the contract that the carrier shall not make delivery without requiring such payment, the consignor (except as hereinafter provided) shall not be liable for such charges”. Graves did not sign the declaration mentioned in this section, but it is admitted that the charges on the shipments were at his instructions to be “collect”. Aside, however, from the contractual provisions in the bills of lading, and the general and ordinary liability of a consignor to pay correct freight charges, we think it clear that Graves was liable for the undercharges on the 45 shipments here involved. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U.S. 59, 44 S.Ct. 441, 68 L.Ed. 900; 9 Am.Jur., Carriers, §§ 623, 624; Missouri-Pacific R. Co. v. Sorrell, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 886; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Lee County Produce Co., D.C., 14 F.2d 145; St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Republic Box Co., D.C., 12 F.2d 441. In the case at bar Graves was not only the consignor of the shipments; he was the owner. The consignees were merely commission agents who received the cattle and sold them on his behalf, and the amounts of the freight undercharges were necessarily reflected in the amounts he finally received in settlements with his commission agents. On the facts in this record he was properly held liable for the undercharges.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.10**

** **

**CONSENT OF****KEITH BLAIR**

 

In connection with the filing of the annual report on Form 40-F (the “Form 40-F”) of Franco-Nevada Corporation with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, I consent to the references to my name, including under the heading “Experts,” and to the use of the technical report entitled “Palmarejo Project SW Chihuahua State, Mexico YE 2012 — Technical Report,” dated January 1, 2013 (the “Report”), and the information derived from the Report, included in the 2013 Annual Information Form of Franco-Nevada Corporation dated March 19, 2014 (the “AIF”), which is filed as an exhibit to, and incorporated by reference in, the Form 40-F.

 

I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-190109), on Form S-8 (No. 333-176856) and on Form F-10 (No. 333-191835) of the references to my name in the AIF and the use of the Report and the information derived therefrom.

 
| DATED:                 | March 19,   2014 |   |
|------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|                   |                  |
|                   |                  |
| (signed)   Keith Blair |                  |
| Name:   Keith Blair    |                  |

 

----
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 724 

Honoring the life and legacy of Jack Trice. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2023 

Mr. FEENSTRA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life and legacy of Jack Trice. 

Whereas Jack Trice, born John G. Trice on May 12, 1902, 

in Hiram, Ohio, was Iowa State University’s first African-American student-athlete; 

Whereas, after an all-State football career at East Technical 

High School in Cleveland, Jack Trice enrolled at Iowa 

State College, now Iowa State University, in 1922, at the 

encouragement of his high school coach, Sam Willaman, 

who had recently been named football coach at Iowa 

State; 

Whereas Jack studied animal husbandry at Iowa State and 

planned to help Black farmers after his graduation; 

Whereas, during his sophomore year, Jack’s second game was 

at the University of Minnesota; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 724 IH 

Whereas the night before the game, Jack was alone in his 

hotel room, and he wrote a letter with his thoughts on 

the game and its significance, and part of the letter read: 

‘‘The honor of my race, family, and self are at stake. Everyone is expecting me to do big things. I will!’’; 

Whereas the next day, October 6, 1923, on one of the first 

plays of the game, Jack was injured, but refused to leave 

the game; 

Whereas in the second half, Jack was trampled by Minnesota 

players and was taken to the hospital, but doctors cleared 

him for a return to Ames, Iowa; 

Whereas, on Monday, October 8, Jack Trice tragically passed 

away from internal bleeding and injuries sustained during the game 2 days before; 

Whereas a memorial service was held on the central campus 

of Iowa State University, and the college raised money 

for Jack’s mother and his wife, and a plaque was displayed in State Gym; 

Whereas, in 1997, Iowa State University’s football stadium 

was renamed from Cyclone Stadium to Jack Trice Stadium, and it remains the only major college football stadium named for an African American; 

Whereas today, the work to honor Jack’s legacy continues at 

Iowa State University through the Jack Trice Character 

Award and Jack Trice Endowed Scholarship; 

Whereas October 2023 marks the 100-year anniversary of the 

tragic death of Jack Trice; 

Whereas Iowa State University will host the Jack Trice Legacy Game on October 7, 2023, to pay tribute to his legacy which continues; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 724 IH 

Whereas, on October 8, 2023, Iowa State University will host 

a ceremony honoring Jack exactly 100 years after his 

death on the central campus lawn, the same location as 

his funeral on October 9, 1923, where hundreds of students paid their respects; and 

Whereas, with this resolution, to honor the life of Jack Trice, 

a young man that has inspired decades of students, faculty, staff, Cyclone fans, alumni, and community members: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors 

2 the life and legacy of Jack Trice. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
Raymond Nelson ROY, III, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1523

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
AQUARIUM RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a Big Al's, Aquarium Supercenter, Appellant, v. Michael W. BRANDT and Central Garden and Pet Company, Appellees.

No. 4D16-1481

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 22, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q 
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,298,647
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,790,747
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,078,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,687,808
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,054,452
<PP&E>                                       3,074,824
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,580,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,354,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,889,692
<BONDS>                                     31,594,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,500
<COMMON>                                       810,975
<OTHER-SE>                                (29,600,385)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,354,705
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,953,457
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,188,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,083,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               204,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,083,719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,318,689)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,318,689)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,318,689)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)
        

</TABLE>
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 June 2005

in Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03 Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Specialty graphite market - Price fixing - Liability - Calculation of fines - Cumulation of penalties - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Applicability - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Aggravating circumstances - Ability to pay - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Methods of payment)

(2005/C 205/31)

Languages of the case: German and English

In Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03, Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, Intech EDM BV, established in Lomm (Netherlands), represented by M. Karl and C. Steinle, lawyers, Intec EDM AG, established in Losone (Switzerland) M. Karl and C. Steinle, lawyers, SGL Carbon AG, established in Wiesbaden (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and P. Niggemann, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: W. Mölls, P. Hellström, F. Castillo de la Torre and S. Rating, acting as Agents, assisted, in Cases T-74/03 and T-87/03, by H. J. Freund, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg), actions for annulment in full or in part of Commission Decision C(2002) 5083 final of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.667 — Speciality Graphite), the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003

----
STATE EX REL. Paul J. BEEBE, III v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2018-KH-0109

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY**

PER CURIAM:

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.

Relator has now exhausted the right to obtain post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in *1181La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator has filed an application for post-conviction relief in the district court, and the district court's ruling denying relief is now final. Hereafter, unless relator can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted the right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
----

----

I Mitteilungen

Kommission

----

GEMEINSAMER SORTENKATALOG FÜR GEMÜSEARTEN

4. Ergänzung zur 23. Gesamtausgabe

(2005/C 158 A/01)

INHALT

Erläuterungen

Liste der Gemüsearten

ERLÄUTERUNGEN

2.ALLIUM CEPA L.

4.ALLIUM PORRUM L.

5.ALLIUM SATIVUM L.

6.ANTHRISCUS CEREFOLIUM (L.) HOFFM.

7.APIUM GRAVEOLENS L.

8.ASPARAGUS OFFICINALIS L.

9.BETA VULGARIS L. VAR. VULGARIS

10.BETA VULGARIS L. VAR. CONDITIVA ALEF.

12.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. BOTRYTIS (L.) ALEF. VAR. BOTRYTIS L.

13.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. BOTRYTIS (L.) ALEF. VAR. CYMOSA DUCH.

14.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. OLERACEA VAR. GEMMIFERA DC.

15.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. CAPITATA (L.) ALEF. VAR. SABAUDA L.

16.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. CAPITATA (L.) ALEF. VAR. ALBA DC.

17.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. CAPITATA (L.) ALEF. VAR. RUBRA DC.

18.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. ACEPHALA (DC.) ALEF. VAR. GONGYLODES

19.BRASSICA PEKINENSIS (LOUR.) RUPR.

21.CAPSICUM ANNUUM L.

22.CICHORIUM ENDIVIA L.

23.CICHORIUM INTYBUS L. (PARTIM)

24.CICHORIUM INTYBUS L. (PARTIM)

25.CITRULLUS LANATUS (THUNB.) MATSUM. ET NAKAI

26.CUCUMIS MELO L.

27.CUCUMIS SATIVUS L.

28.CUCURBITA MAXIMA DUCHESNE

29.CUCURBITA PEPO L.

31.CYNARA SCOLYMUS L.

32.DAUCUS CAROTA L.

33.FOENICULUM VULGARE MILLER

34.LACTUCA SATIVA L.

35.LYCOPERSICON LYCOPERSICUM (L.) KARSTEN EX FARW.

36.PETROSELINUM CRISPUM (MILLER) NYMAN EX A. W. HILL

38.PHASEOLUS VULGARIS L.

39.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

40.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L.

42.SCORZONERA HISPANICA L.

43.SOLANUM MELONGENA L.

44.SPINACIA OLERACEA L.

----

(1)ABl. C 260 A vom 22.10.2004, S. 1. Sortenkatalog zuletzt geändert durch die 3. Ergänzung (ABl. C 136 A vom 3.6.2005, S. 1).

(2)ABl. L 193 vom 20.7.2002, S. 33. Richtlinie zuletzt geändert durch die Richtlinie 2004/117/EG (ABl. L 14 vom 18.1.2005, S. 18).

----
Rony J. VEUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2448

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Sidney SPIEGEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Town of Palm Beach, a Florida municipal corporation, and Sterling Palm Beach, LLC, Appellees.

No. 4D16-3385

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 30, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive


Officer of Broadleaf Capital Partners, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:





1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Broadleaf Capital Partners, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated: September 20, 2011





/s/ J. Michael King


J. Michael King,


Interim President/CFO








The certifications set forth above are being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act


of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor


shall they be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.








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 within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section


906, has been provided to Broadleaf Capital Partners, Inc. and will be retained by Broadleaf Capital Partners, Inc. and furnished to the


Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Clint A. AVANT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1811

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
James Robert GRIFFIN v. STATE

CR-15-0561

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1993
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1993
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              200
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        49,949
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (50,149)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      (200)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   125
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (125)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
STATE EX REL. Jeffery JONES v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-1535

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND, JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Two of relator's claims are repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A). Moreover, his sentencing claims are not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State* , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 ; *see also* *State v. Cotton* , 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.