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
  (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/ Eugene M. IsenbergEugene M. IsenbergChairman and Chief Executive Officer

February 27, 2009/s/ Bruce P. KochBruce P. KochVice President and Chief Financial Officer

February 27, 2009
# C_2020030EN.01000601.xml

| 29.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/6

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/120, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/119 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(2020/C 30/04)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/120 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/119 (4) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons should be included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 22 I, 28.1.2020, p. 5

(3)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.

(4)  OJ L 22 I, 28.1.2020, p. 1

---
John Mitchell TOMLINSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3405

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 18, 2018 Rehearing Denied October 30, 2018

John Mitchell Tomlinson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED. *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Makar, Osterhaus, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Order entered March 10, 2021

In The



### Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00428

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D .F.D. AND T.Z.D., CH ILDREN

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 18

- 19199

O RDER

I voluntarily recuse myself from hearing any matter in the above appeal.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
Order filed January 31, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00942-CV

____________

BIG MASONRY, L.L.C, Appellant

V.

EDWARD LIVING TRUST, Appellee

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 09-08-07550-CV

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed October 3, 2013. No clerk’s 

record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal 

informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. The 

clerk also informed this court that appellant’s counsel informed the clerk the 

parties have reached an agreement and appellant no longer desires to pursue this 

appeal. However, as of this date, no motion to dismiss has been filed. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.1.
Accordingly, we enter the following order. Unless appellant pays or make

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and provides this court with proof of 

payment within fifteen days of the date of this order, the appeal will be dismissed 

for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

PER CURIAM
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 Merci, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March  31, 2006 (the Report), I, Jose Acevedo, President 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.  Date: August 19, 2008  /s/Jose Acevedo President
Exhibit
31.1





Section
302 Certifications





I, Brian
Fisher, certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this quarterly report on form 10-QSB of Exmocare,
Inc.





2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report.





3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report.





4.           The
small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
exchange act rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and
have:





a)           designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b)           evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report on such evaluation; and





c)           disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial
reporting; and





5.           The
small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business
issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a)           all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and





b)           any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting.





s/
Brian Fisher


Brian
Fisher


President
and Director


(Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 0005 7

- CV

____ _______________________

On App eal from the 352nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 352

- 305848

- 19 Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr , JJ. Memo randum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth 

### R ITA 

### R AMON 

### , Appellant
V 

### . G LADNEY 

### C ENTER FOR 

### A DOPTION 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial co urt signed the judgment in this case on June 20 , 2019, and Appellant Rita R a mon filed a motion for new trial on July 11, 2019, making her notice of appeal due within 90 days after the judgment ’ s signing
. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). However, Appellant did not file her notice of appeal until Februa ry 18, 2020
. W e notified Appellant of our concern that we lacke d jurisdiction over the appeal because the notice of appeal was not timel y filed . We stated that unless Appellant or any party desiring to contin ue the appeal filed a response showing grounds to continue th e appeal, we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b), 26.1, 42.3(a), 44.3. Appel lant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the ap peal. Therefore , we dismiss the appeal for wan t of jurisdiction. See , e.g. , In re D.A. , No. 02

- 15

- 00346

- CV, 2015 WL 9244637, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 17, 2015, no pet.) (mem . op.) (“ The time for fi ling a notice of appeal is jurisdictional in this court, and absent a timely

- filed notice of app eal or extension request, we must dismiss the appeal. ”); see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 4 3.2(f).
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Deli vered: April 2, 2020
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-3027 September Term, 2021

1:17-cr-00233-TNM-1

Filed On: August 24, 2022

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Thomas Jenkins,

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Pillard, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the memoranda of law and fact filed by the parties. 

The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion.

See D.C. Cir. Rule 36. Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the request for

appointment of counsel, it is

ORDERED that appellant’s request for appointment of counsel be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s April 18, 2022

order denying appellant’s motion for compassionate release be affirmed. Appellant has

not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion. See United

States v. Long, 997 F.3d 342, 352 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22-3027 September Term, 2021

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
EXHIBIT 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Achron, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report of North American Natural Gas, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)

paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition Rules contained in SEC Release No. 33-8238;



c)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



d)

disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction);



a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and



b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

|Date: |  | August 27, 2004 |  | /s/ Richard Achron                        
|----- |  | --------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|      |  |                 |  | Richard Achron
Principal Financial Officer
Patricia M. BANKS, Appellant, v. Frank C. MAYER, Jr., Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2575

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Buywade A. BABORAM, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, O/B/O Gabriella D.M. JOSEPH, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1375

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

October 17, 2018

Buywade Baboram, Mirimar, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee Department of Revenue.

Per Curiam.

*532*Affirmed* . *See**Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee* , 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1980).

Warner, May and Forst, JJ., concur.
Dianne WILLIAMS, Cyril Jefferson, Donna Carter, Darlene Colbert Turner, and Gregory Depland, Individually and on Behalf of Their Father, Frederick Depland (D) v. TOURO INFIRMARY, Dr. Charlane Liles, and Dr. Theodore J. Borgman

Dianne Williams, Cyril Jefferson, Donna Carter, Darlene Colbert Turner and Gregory Depland, Individually and on Behalf of Their Father, Frederick Depland v. Touro Infirmary, Dr. Charlane Liles and Dr. Theodore J. Borgman

NO. 2018-CC-1265

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 29, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
John Henry CLAY-BOYCE, DOC #S41217, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3355

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Cite as Baze-Sif v. Sif , 2014-Ohio-3402.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Sanaa Baze-Sif, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

v. : No. 14AP-434 (C.P.C. No. 13DR-07-2661) Said Sif, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Defendant-Appellant. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on August 5, 2014

Kelly M. Morgan , for appellee.

Bellinger & Donahue , and Kelly M. Donahue , for appellant.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

TYACK, J

. {¶ 1} Sanaa Baze-Sif and Said Sif were married in Morocco in June 2007. They lived together in Dublin, Ohio. While supposedly just visiting in Morocco, Said served Sanaa divorce papers. Even though Sanaa was pregnant, the divorce proceedings continued to progress in Morocco. {¶ 2} Sanaa returned to the United States and filed divorce papers here. Said responded with a motion to dismiss, claiming that a divorce had already been granted in Morocco so the parties were no longer married. Since the parties were already divorced in the country where their marriage occurred, Said asserted no divorce could occur in the

United States. {¶ 3} Counsel for Said pursued a motion to dismiss the United States divorce case. A judge of the Franklin County Co urt of Common Pleas, Division of DomesticNo. 14AP-434 2

Relations and Juvenile Branch overruled the motion to dismiss in a detailed decision and entry. Counsel for Said has filed an appeal of that decision. Counsel for Sanaa has filed a motion asking that we dismiss the appeal. {¶ 4} For us to have jurisdiction over an appeal, the trial court must have journalized a final appealable order as defined in R.C. 2505.02. We find no such final appealable order to have been journalized in this case. Because of the unique factual and procedural history in this case, the trial court refused to grant comity to the Moroccan

divorce decree and refused to dismiss the divorce case. The refusal to dismiss a case between private parties is rarely a final appealable order. We do not find the trial court's refusal to dismiss the divorce case between Sanaa Baze-Sif and Said Sif to be an exception. {¶ 5} The motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. Motion to dismiss granted. Appeal dismissed.

CONNOR and DORRIAN, JJ., concur.
L S., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph SEEBER, Superintendent, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0880

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EPA 3958
# C_2020180EN.01000101.xml

| 29.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/1

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.9489 – Air Canada/Transat)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 180/01)

On 25 May 2020, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+ 32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.9489 – Air Canada/Transat, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6551

SERGIO EMMANUEL HAYES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-02-1257-AM)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 21, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sergio Emmanuel Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sergio Emmanuel Hayes seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Hayes has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED