alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuantto Section 906 of**

**the**

**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned, the ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of U-Store-It Trust (the “Company”),each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(a) TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30,2010 (the “Report”) filed on the date hereof with the Securities and ExchangeCommission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| Date:  November 5, 2010 | /s/  Dean Jernigan         |
|------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                         | Dean  Jernigan             |
| * *                     | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

 
| Date:  November 5, 2010 | /s/  Timothy M. Martin     |
|------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                         | Timothy  M. Martin         |
| * *                     | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# C_2016371EN.01002501.xml

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/25

---

Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Cotecnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (cotecnica OPTIMA)

(Case T-465/16)

(2016/C 371/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cotecnica, SCCL (Bellpuig, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, J. C. Erdozain López and J. Galán López, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Visán Industrias Zootécnicas, SL (Arganda, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Cotecnica, SCCL

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘cotecnica OPTIMA’ — Application for registration No 13 292 479

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13/06/2016 in Case R 229/2016-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the proposed evidence admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the proposed evidence admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and case-law of the General Court, in particular, the judgment of 20 January 2009 in Case T-424/07, Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and case-law of the General Court, in particular, the judgment of 20 January 2009 in Case T-424/07, Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM).

Pioneer Hi-Bred International

OHIM (OPTIMUM)

---
Exhibit
32.2




Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule
15d-14(b) and 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 NGP Capital Resources Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen
K. Gardner, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary 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 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, as amended;
  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: 
June 24, 2010





By:
                /s/ Stephen K. GardnerStephen
      K. GardnerChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
Order filed August 9, 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 21
- 00045
- CV

____________ MARYAM MOHAMMADI , Appellant

V. ALBERTSONS, LLC D/B/A RANDALL'S; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, LLC D/B/A RANDALL'S AND RANDALL'S FOOD MARKETS, INC. D/ B/A RANDALL'S; RANDALL'S FOOD & DRUGS L.P., D/B/A

RANDALL'S , Appellee
On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017
- 51885



### ORDER This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original Defendant’s Exhibit 1.The clerk of the 190th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of

this court the original Defendant’s Exhibit 1, on or before August 1 6 , 2022. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of Defendant’s Exhibit 1, to the clerk of the 190th District Court.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain.
# C_2016222EN.01002501.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/25

---

Action brought on 20 April 2016 — Kofola ČeskoSlovensko v EUIPO — Mionetto (UGO)

(Case T-176/16)

(2016/C 222/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kofola ČeskoSlovensko (Ostrava, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mionetto SpA (Valdobbiadene, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘UGO’ — Application for registration No 11 541 851

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2016 in Case R 2707/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 as amended and the rules of law relating to its application, in particular, incorrect consideration of the likelihood of confusion of the trademarks in question. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 as amended and the rules of law relating to its application, in particular, incorrect consideration of the likelihood of confusion of the trademarks in question.

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of 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 September 30,
2009, 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: November 12, 2009

/s/ Yilun Jin Yilun Jin Chief Financial
Officer

---
0 i I 

3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates ~ourt of jf eberal ~!aims 

No. 17-807C 

(Filed June 21, 2017) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

SAMUEL BURLESON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ORDER 

FILED 

JUN 2 1 2017 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

Samuel Burleson, a prisoner in the custody of the State of Texas, has filed a 

complaint in t his court. He did not pay the filing fee with his complaint and did not 

file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In that complaint he appears to be 

contesting the legality of his imprisonment. Mister Burleson h as brought numerous 

civil actions in feder al courts during his incarcer ation. Accordingly, on June 8, 

2017, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas determined 

that he is not eligible for in forma pauperis status under the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act because he h as filed three civil actions in federal courts which were 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. Burleson v. United 

States Corporation, et al., 17-cv-514 (W.D. Tex. June 8, 2017) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

1915). As Mr. Burleson's complaint does not allege that he is in "imminent danger 

of serious physical injury," see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this Court likewise finds that 

plaintiff is not eligible to proceed without first paying the filing fee. Therefore, 

plaintiff must pay the $400 filing fee in full by Thursday, July 20, 2017, or his 

complaint will be dismissed for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 

Rules of the United States Court of Feder al Claims. 

7017 1450 DODD 1346 0126 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

VI 1;i.¥ . WOL 

Judge 

- 2 -
# C_2020087EN.01001601.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 14 January 2020 — Top System SA v Belgian State

(Case C-13/20)

(2020/C 87/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Top System SA

Defendant: Belgian State

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC (1) of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs to be interpreted as permitting the lawful purchaser of a computer program to decompile all or part of that program where such decompilation is necessary to enable that person to correct errors affecting the operation of the program, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which the program forms a part? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC (1) of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs to be interpreted as permitting the lawful purchaser of a computer program to decompile all or part of that program where such decompilation is necessary to enable that person to correct errors affecting the operation of the program, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which the program forms a part?

| 2. | In the event that that question is answered in the affirmative, must the conditions referred to in Article 6, or any other conditions, also be satisfied? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that that question is answered in the affirmative, must the conditions referred to in Article 6, or any other conditions, also be satisfied?

---

(1)  OJ 1991, L 122, p. 42.

---
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Joseph J. Euteneuer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of XM Satellite Radio 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 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 financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
the registrant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 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 28, 2005



|    |  |                                                                         
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Joseph J. Euteneuer                                                 
|    |  | Joseph J. Euteneuer Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
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 Parks! America,, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry Eastland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.   Date:  November 19, 2008By:/s/ Larry EastlandLarry Eastland
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.11





 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF DEBT


 


KNOW ALL MEN BY
THESE PRESENCES,


 


THAT
BIOCRUDE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (“Borrower”), a company organized under Canadian laws, bearing
the civic address of 1255 Phillips Square, suite 605, Montreal Quebec, Canada H3B 3G5, duly represented by the Chairman and CEO,
Mr. John Moukas, by corporate resolution, has borrowed from Mr. David Kirsh (“Lender”),
residing at 83 16th Avenue, Roxboro, Quebec, Canada H8Y 2Y2, the total sum of Eighty Thousand Canadian Dollars ($80,000
CDN), in increments totaling to the said amount from January 2011 to December 2015, whereby the Borrower expressly renounces the
benefits of the “exceptio non numeratae
pecuniae” and confirms that he understands the meaning of this exception and the effect of its renunciation.


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the Borrower promises to pay to the Lender, the registered holder hereof, the principal sum
of Eighty Thousand Canadian Dollars ($80,000 CDN), on or before December 31st, 2016 (the “Maturity
Date”), as determined by the Borrower, and to pay a one-time interest, on a compound basis, on the principal
sum outstanding at the Applicable Interest Rate of four percent (4.0%), accruing from March 15th, 2016, the date of
these negotiated and acknowledged presences, (the “Commencement
Date”), on the Maturity date (“Principal
Sum and Interest Payment Date”). Should the Borrower require an extension of an additional year for the
repayment of the borrowed funds and accrued interest thereof, from the Maturity Date, the Borrower shall request same from the
Lender, by way of written notice, no later than 15 days, prior to the Maturity Date of payment, and said request will not be refused
by Lender.


 


The
Borrower shall be entitled to pay large instalments or the full balance of capital and interest at any time prior to
the prescribed dates of payment. In any such event interest shall be calculated up to the date of payment.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, BioCrude Technologies, Inc. has executed this instrument on the 30th day of December,
2015, as a true act and deeded.


 


	Sealed, executed, and countersigned:	 
	 	 
	By: BioCrude Technologies, Inc.	 
	 	 
	/s/ Mr. John Moukas	 
	Mr. John Moukas; Chairman/CEO	 


 


Accepted,
acknowledged, sealed and countersigned this 30th day of December, 2015:


 


	By: Mr. David Kirsh	 
	 	 
	/s/ Mr. David Kirsh	 
	Mr. David Kirsh
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 617 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that Israel has the inherent right to 

defend itself and take necessary steps to eradicate the terrorist threat 

posed by Hamas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2024 

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. 

CRUZ, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. RICKETTS, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, 

Mr. CRAPO, Ms. ERNST, Mr. CRAMER, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. GRASSLEY, 

Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. THUNE, Mr. MORAN, Mr. BUDD, Mr. DAINES, Mr. 

BARRASSO, Mr. LANKFORD, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. GRAHAM, 

Mr. HOEVEN, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. HAWLEY, and Mrs. BRITT) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that Israel has the inherent right to defend itself and take necessary steps to 

eradicate the terrorist threat posed by Hamas. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) Israel has the inherent right to defend itself 

3 and take necessary steps to eradicate the terrorist 

4 threat posed by Hamas; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 617 IS 

1 (2) any call for elections in Israel by a United 

2 States Government official is to be considered an act 

3 of electoral interference. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2 (1)

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Systems Management
Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

      To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  April 14, 2005


                            BY:    /s/ Morris Kunofsky
                               -------------------------------------------
                                   MORRIS KUNOFSKY
                                   CHIEF  FINANCIAL OFFICER
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DWAYNE MEREDITH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

RAUL LOPEZ,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 12-16594

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01395-JFM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John F. Moulds, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 4, 2013

San Francisco, California

Before: TROTT, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291

and 2253(a), and we affirm.

FILED

DEC 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Because the facts and circumstances of this case are well known to the

parties and were fully aired during oral argument, we need not repeat them at

length in this disposition. 

Respondent Lopez concedes that Meredith’s right to participate in his trial

without wearing identifiable jail clothing was violated by the trial judge. 

Nevertheless, Meredith is not entitled to relief if this violation had no “substantial

and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v.

Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon

examining the record, we conclude that the violation had no such influence or

effect. Meredith conceded at trial that he was in possession of stolen property from

the victim’s home (Count II) as well as methamphetamine (Count III), leaving us

with only the contested residential burglary to consider (Count I). As to this count,

an eyewitness observed Meredith exiting the victim’s previously locked garage. 

When asked by the witness for his name, Meredith hopped over a fence and sped

off down the street while “tucked down” in a car. When the police apprehended

him, he was in possession of two items belonging to the victim that previously had

been in the house. The eyewitness promptly identified Meredith near the scene of

his arrest. 

2
Moreover, Meredith’s primary defense to the burglary was that the house

involved did not qualify as a residence. This defense could not have been

influenced by Meredith’s identifiable jail clothing. 

AFFIRMED. 

3