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

I, Jeffrey Cavins, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of CallWave Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of CallWave Inc.



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  |                        
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 5, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Jeffrey Cavins
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Name:              |  | Jeffrey Cavins         
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Title:             |  | Chief Executive Officer
# C_2021310EN.01000801.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 June 2021 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission, Czech Republic

(Case C-153/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Lithuania - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Administrative checks - On-the-spot check - Quality of checks - Quality of the applicants - Artificial conditions - Expenditure incurred through projects)

(2021/C 310/08)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Dzikovič and K. Dieninio, acting as agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and A. Steiblytė, acting as agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---
---

Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,as
adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
American Lorain Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2010,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Yilun Jin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and

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

Dated: August 10, 2010

/s/ Yilun JinYilun Jin
  Chief Financial Officer

---
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 16 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 17 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 18 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 19 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 20 of 21
Case 23-31943-sgj11 Doc 40 Filed 12/28/23 Entered 12/28/23 12:29:47 Desc Main

Document Page 21 of 21
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 501 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. Nformangum. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony and representation in United States 

v. Nformangum. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Nformangum, Cr. 

No. 22-367, pending in the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas, the prosecution has 

requested the production of testimony from Amy English, 

Grant Murray, and Anthony Rodregous, employees of the 

Office of Senator Ted Cruz; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and employees of the 

Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 

for evidence relating to their official responsibilities; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

SRES 501 ATS 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Amy English, Grant Murray, and An2 thony Rodregous, employees in the Office of Senator Ted 

3 Cruz, are authorized to provide relevant testimony in the 

4 case of United States v. Nformangum, except concerning 

5 matters for which a privilege should be asserted. 

6 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

7 represent Ms. English, Messrs. Murray, and Rodregous, 

8 and any current or former officer or employees of Senator 

9 Cruz’s office, in connection with the production of evi10 dence authorized in section one of this resolution. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 370



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I No. E - 22 - 3 09

KATHY HICKS APPELLANT

V.
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES ; AND JOHN CAGE ENTERPRISES APPELLEES Opinion Delivered September 6, 2023 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW [ N O

. 2021 - BR

- 0 5219 ]

REMANDED

WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD , Judge Appellant Kathy Hicks appeals an adverse decision of the Arkansas Board of Review (the “Board”) finding her liable to repay unemployment benefits plus a statutory penalty. We remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion. The Division of Workforce Ser vices (the “Division”) issued a notice of fraud overpayment determination on July 29, 2021, finding Hicks liable to repay benefits in the amount of $15,025 pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 11
- 10 - 532(a) (Supp.
2023 )

. The determination was affirme d on appeal first by the Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) and then by the Board. The basis for the repayment determination involves an initial underlying claim for unemployment benefits filed by Hicks on April 7, 2020.2

In the underlying claim, the Divisio n issued a determination disqualifying Hicks from receiving these benefits under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11 - 10 - 519(a)(1) (Supp. 2023) , and its determination was affirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that Hicks indicated in her claim for bene fits that she was working reduced hours but found the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated she had not actually worked since March 17, 2020. The Board affirmed the Tribunal’s decision. Hicks’s appeal from the Board’s decision is also handed down today. Hicks v. Dir ., 2023 Ark. App. 371 ( Hicks I ). The basis of the Tribunal’s finding in Hicks I is that Hicks allegedly made a misrepresentation of fact in the application for benefits that she filed on April 7, 2020. Because the record on appeal in Hic ks I did not contain the April 7 application, we remanded to supplement the record. Hicks I . We cannot reach the merits of Hicks’s appeal in this case until there has been a final determination on the underlying unemployment
- benefits claim. Therefore, in light of our disposition in Hicks I , we remand this case until a final determination is made by the Board in the underlying claim. Remanded.
V IRDEN and K LAPPENBACH , JJ. , agree. Kathy Hicks , pro se appellant. Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz , Associate General Counsel, for appellee.
# C_2021242EN.01003401.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Chanel v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves)

(Case T-44/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing a circle containing two interlaced curves - Earlier national figurative mark representing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally - Earlier national figurative mark representing a circle containing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 242/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chanel (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J. Passa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 (Case R 1041/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Chanel and Huawei Technologies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Chanel to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chanel to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - (-)other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - new mexico(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - rhode island(1)

## By Year

General        August 2, 2018        370.410.1 - Training - General Provision

General        December 29, 2023        Science Information Service (SIS)

General        July 11, 2019        Giuseppina Mattietti

General        July 11, 2019        Madalyn Blondes

General        July 11, 2019        Sally Sennert

General        May 1, 2019        General Questions To Pose While Exploring Topographic Maps

General        July 11, 2019        Alanna Simpson

General        July 11, 2019        Geoff Gilleaudeau

General        July 11, 2019        Jacob Richardson

General        July 11, 2019        William F. Hoover

General        July 11, 2019        Jess Rodysill

General        January 24, 2023        Don't Take It for Granite

General        August 3, 2018        429.1 - Space Management

General        March 1, 2018        Birdsall-Dreiss Distinguished Lecturer: Clifford I. Voss

General        July 30, 2020        New Mexico Water Science Center Sediment Laboratory

Podcasts        August 16, 2011        A Study in Stream Ecology

Podcasts        August 8, 2011        2011: The Year of the Flood

Podcasts        October 26, 2008        Earthquakes? Don't Freak Out--ShakeOut!
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 17 2000 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK PUBLISH IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 97-6163

________________________ D. C. Docket No. 95-00158-CR-5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GOLDIN INDUSTRIES, INC., GOLDIN OF ALABAMA, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________ Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: A member of this court in active se rvice having requested a poll on whether hearing en banc should be gran ted, and a majority of the judges in this court in active2 service having voted in favor of granting a hearing en banc solely on the issue of whether this court’s holding in United States v. Hartley , 678 F.2d 961 (11thCir. 1982), that the person named in an indictment neednot be distinct from the enterprise named therein for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), should be overturned. IT IS ORDERED that the issue shall be heard by this court en banc. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the par ties may adopt the supplemental briefs that they have submitted on this issue as thei r en banc briefs. Alternatively, if either party wishes to augment its brief, it may do so by filing such brief within seven (7) days of this order, in which event the othe r party may file a repl y brief within seven (7) days thereafter. The briefs shall conf orm to the requirements for en banc briefs provided in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 and the attendant local rules.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13a-14
PROMULGATED UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, L. Leighton Alston, Chief Executive Officer of WGNB Corp., certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of WGNB Corp.;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 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 Rules 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 our 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)
    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(c)
    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
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 financing reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):  (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
information; 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: March 22, 2005/s/ L. Leighton AlstonL. Leighton AlstonChief Executive Officer
# C_2022257EN.01000902.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Comune di Lerici v Provincia di La Spezia

(Case C-719/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Waste management - In-house award - Directive 2014/24/EU - Articles 12 and 72 - Loss of ‘similar control’ conditions as a result of a business combination - Possibility for the successor operator to continue providing the service)

(2022/C 257/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Lerici

Defendant: Provincia di La Spezia

Interveners: IREN SpA, ACAM Ambiente SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as precluding national rules or a national practice under which the performance of a public contract, initially awarded without any tendering procedure to an in-house entity over which the contracting authority exercised, jointly, a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments, is automatically continued by the economic operator which acquired that entity, following a tendering procedure, where that contracting authority does not have such control over that operator and does not hold any shares in its capital.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

---
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 Sheffield Products, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Cosmo Palmieri,  a director 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.

/s/Cosmo Palmieri



Cosmo Palmieri,

 Director

May 17, 2004
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00414-CV 

IN RE STEVE FIELDER, RELATOR 

 

OPINION DISMISSING ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

 

November 19, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Relator, Steve Fielder, filed an application for a writ of mandamus in the abovereferenced cause without paying the requisite filing fee. By letter dated November 4, 

2015, this court directed Fielder to pay the filing fee or file an affidavit of indigence, and 

if indigent, to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 

Fielder was also informed that the proceeding would be dismissed if he did not comply. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The fee has not been paid to date, nor has Fielder filed an 

affidavit of indigency or sought leave to proceed without the payment of fees.

Because Fielder has failed to pay the requisite filing fee as directed by the court, 

we dismiss the proceeding pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c).

Per Curiam