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

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

With reference to the Quarterly Report of Cambridge Display Technology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Fyfe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ DAVID FYFE         
|DAVID FYFE             
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 4, 2006
D.F.S. v. B.L.

2160604

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Robert Stephen BROCKMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1162

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Y

P-2

-3
EXHIBIT 32

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 10QSB of Mass Megawatts Wind
Power,  Inc.  (the  Company) for the  period  ended July 31, 2006 as  filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jonathon
Ricker,  the  Principal  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge:

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

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


Dated:    9/20/06                      By:  /s/ Jonathan Ricker
        --------------                     ---------------------------------
                                           Jonathan Ricker
                                           Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Chief Financial Officer and
                                           Principal Accounting Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 28, 2010 

d0525 

Order 

 

May 28, 2010 

138323(59) 

DIANE GADIGIAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138323 

 COA: 279540 

Wayne CC: 06-621978-NO 

CITY OF TAYLOR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for clarification of this Court’s April 16, 2010 

order is considered, and it is GRANTED. The April 16, 2010 order is amended to read as 

follows: 

 By order of November 19, 2009, the application for leave to appeal 

the January 27, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals was granted. On 

order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs of the 

parties having been considered, we VACATE our order of November 19, 

2009. Pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

AFFIRM the result reached by the Court of Appeals in light of our decision 

in Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich ___ (Docket No. 138669, decided 

April 8, 2010), which held that the “two-inch rule” of MCL 691.1402a 

applies only to “county” highways. The parties to this case did not dispute 

that the road at issue is not a “county” highway. Therefore, in light of our 

decision in Robinson, the two-inch rule does not apply to this case. We 

thus VACATE the opinion of the Court of Appeals because its analysis is 

dictum given our determination in Robinson that MCL 691.1402a applies 

only to “county” highways. We REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit 

Court for further proceedings consistent with this order and Robinson. 

 We do not retain jurisdiction.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TECHNICAL CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., 

NICOR, INC., AMAX LIGHTING,

Appellants

v.

LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________

2019-1360

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2017-

01280, IPR2018-00261, IPR2018-00271.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

STACIE RACHEL HARTMAN, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 

Chicago, IL, argued for appellants. Also represented by 

JOHN LLOYD ABRAMIC, KATHERINE H. JOHNSON. 

 KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellee. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 19-1360 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 03/16/2020
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

March 16, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-1360 Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 03/16/2020
EX PARTE Imperial Emperor Marcus O. TATE, El-Bey-Tey Washitaw

(In re Emperor Marcus Tate v. Alabama President Pro Tempore et al.)

2160746

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 14, 2017 Reh. denied July 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Aampro Group, Inc., (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
Farkas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


      (1)   The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1,
            fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of  section  13(a)  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 Registrant




Dated: April 15, 2005            /s/ Stephen Farkas
                                 -------------------------------------------
                                 Stephen Farkas
                                 Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                                 Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TREY DARON GUNTER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 408 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
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 Quarterly Report of China Sun Group High-Tech Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ming Fen Liu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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: April 14, 2011





/s/ Ming Fen LiuMing Fen Liu, Principal Financial and

Accounting Officer
Toby BROWN, DOC #H17614, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-324

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2021044EN.01001301.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/13

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 November 2020 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. v European Commission

(Case C-85/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers - Alleged decisions of the European Commission declaring the measure compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Deadline for lodging an appeal - Starting point - Awareness of the existence of the contested measure - Reasonable time in which to request the full text thereof - Definition of ‘actionable measure’ within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU - Inadmissibility of the application at first instance - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2021/C 44/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (represented by: L. Szabó, ügyvéd)

Other party: European Commission

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded;

| 2. | Orders Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---
# C_2022002EN.01003202.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Selmikeit & Giczella v EUIPO — Boehmert & Boehmert (HALLOWIENER)

(Case T-500/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark HALLOWIENER - No genuine use - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 2/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Selmikeit & Giczella GmbH (Osterode, Germany) (represented by: S. Keute, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Boehmert & Boehmert Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB — Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: U. Ulrich, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2020 (Case R 1893/2019-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Boehmert & Boehmert Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB — Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte and Selmikeit & Giczella.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Selmikeit & Giczella GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Selmikeit & Giczella GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

With reference to the Quarterly Report of Cambridge Display Technology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Fyfe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for
the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ DAVID FYFE         
|DAVID FYFE             
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|August 14, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1824

HARRY LEE GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MATTHEW D. GATLING; MARTHA MCELVEEN HORNE;

PATTY PATTERSON; SUMTER CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (3:05-cv-02604-CMC)

Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 17, 2006

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry L. Green, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred Johnston Cox, ELLIS,

LAWHORNE & SIMS, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Harry Lee Green seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal

was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket

on June 14, 2006, and Green filed his notice of appeal on July 17,

2006. Because Green has failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

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
No. 07

- 16

- 00136

- CV

Joe B. Neuhoff and Nancy M. Neuhoff; Thomas H. Neuhoff and Judy A. Neuhoff; Robert V. Neuhoff and Andrea D. Neuhoff; and Boca Vail,
Inc. Appellant s

v.

Piranha Partners, Randolph Mundt, and Thomas H. Owen, Jr., I ndividually and as p artners of Piranha Partners, and Charles Ray Owen Appellee s §

§

§

§ From the 31st District Court of Wheeler County

September 20, 2016

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated September 20, 2016

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the appeal is abated and the cau se is remanded to the 31st

District Court of Wheeler County, Texas

, for further proceedings in accordance with this

Court’s opinion entered this day.

o O o
Federal Aviation
Administration

Memorandum

Date: October 23, 2009
To: NTSB
From: Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center

Subject: INFORMATION: Partial Transcript
Nordo Aircraft NWA188
Goodland, KS, October 21, 2009

This transcription covers the Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) 08
R position for the time period from October 22, 2009, 0007 UTC, to October 22,
2009, 0031 UTC.

Agencies Making Transmissions Abbreviations

Denver Center Sector 08 Radar Controller ZDVO8R

I hereby certify that the following is a true transcription of the recorded
conversations pertaining to the subject Nordo Aircraft involving NWA188.

Kent Monk

Kenneth J. Ashworth
Staff Support Specialist
Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center

0007

(0008-0011)

0012

0012:30 ZDVO8R northwest one eighty eight contact denver center one two
six point three two

0013

(0014-0024)

0025

0025:14 ZDVO8R northwest one eighty eight contact denver center one two
six point three two

0026

(0027-0030)

0031

End of Transcript
Reginald Desmond WALLACE v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-01647-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: November 13, 2018 Closed: February 14, 2019

Certiorari - Denied.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 615 

Designating April 5, 2024, as ‘‘Gold Star Wives Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Mr. BUDD, and Mr. BOOZMAN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating April 5, 2024, as ‘‘Gold Star Wives Day’’. 

Whereas the Senate honors the sacrifices made by the surviving spouses and families of the fallen members of the 

Armed Forces of the United States; 

Whereas Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. represents the surviving spouses and families of the members and veterans 

of the Armed Forces of the United States who have died 

on active duty or as a result of a service-connected disability; 

Whereas the primary mission of Gold Star Wives of America, 

Inc. is to provide services, support, and friendship to the 

surviving spouses and children of the fallen members and 

veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States; 

Whereas, in 1945, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. was organized with the help of Eleanor Roosevelt to assist the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 615 ATS 

families left behind by the fallen members and veterans 

of the Armed Forces of the United States; 

Whereas the first meeting of Gold Star Wives of America, 

Inc. was held on April 5, 1945; 

Whereas April 5, 2024, marks the 79th anniversary of the 

first meeting of Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.; 

Whereas the members and veterans of the Armed Forces of 

the United States bear the burden of protecting the freedom of the people of the United States; and 

Whereas the sacrifices of the families of the fallen members 

and veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States 

should never be forgotten: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates April 5, 2024, as ‘‘Gold Star 

3 Wives Day’’; 

4 (2) honors and recognizes— 

5 (A) the contributions of the members of 

6 Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.; and 

7 (B) the dedication of the members of Gold 

8 Star Wives of America, Inc. to the members 

9 and veterans of the Armed Forces of the United 

10 States; and 

11 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

12 to observe Gold Star Wives Day to promote aware13 ness of— 

14 (A) the contributions and dedication of the 

15 members of Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 615 ATS 

1 to the members and veterans of the Armed 

2 Forces of the United States; and 

3 (B) the important role that Gold Star 

4 Wives of America, Inc. plays in the lives of the 

5 surviving spouses and families of the fallen 

6 members and veterans of the Armed Forces of 

7 the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2021028EN.01002202.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 27 October 2020 — PR and Others v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-558/20)

(2021/C 28/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PR, BV

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---