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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FCStone Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal 2ndquarter 2009 ending February 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|(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/ Paul G. Anderson         
|Paul G. Anderson             
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)

April 9, 2009

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 7 Filed 05/11/00 Page 1 of 1 PageID 11
STATE of Louisiana v. Ronald ALEXANDER

No. 2018-KH-0372

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
# C_2021278EN.01004501.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/45

---

Order of the General Court of 25 May 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-262/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 278/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: R. Gioia and L. Mansi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 (Case R 1546/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Rochem Marine and Rochem Group.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Rochem Group AG and Rochem Marine Srl. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Rochem Group AG and Rochem Marine Srl.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

---
Roderick Deshun WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-839

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
WING KEI HO and Karen C. Yeh Ho, Appellants, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. n/k/a Bank of America, N.A., La Florence at Renaissance Commons Homeowners Association Inc, Renaissance Commons Master Association, Inc., Appellees.

No. 4D18-1205

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2021072EN.01001201.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Córdoba (Spain) lodged on 19 November 2020 — ZU and TV v Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-618/20)

(2021/C 72/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Córdoba

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ZU and TV

Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

Questions referred

| 1. | May a carrier that sells tickets through its own website for flights operated under the code of another airline be considered an operating air carrier for the purposes of Article 5(5) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in respect of the specific flights it sells that are operated by another company? |
| --- | --- |

1.

May a carrier that sells tickets through its own website for flights operated under the code of another airline be considered an operating air carrier for the purposes of Article 5(5) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in respect of the specific flights it sells that are operated by another company?

| 2. | May a carrier that sells tickets through its own website for flights operated under the code of another airline be considered an operating air carrier for the purposes of Article 5(5) of Regulation No 261/2004 in respect of the specific flights it sells that are operated by another company where the company that operates a flight is part of the corporate group of the company that sells tickets for that flight? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May a carrier that sells tickets through its own website for flights operated under the code of another airline be considered an operating air carrier for the purposes of Article 5(5) of Regulation No 261/2004 in respect of the specific flights it sells that are operated by another company where the company that operates a flight is part of the corporate group of the company that sells tickets for that flight?

| 3. | May the concept of contracting carrier in Article 45 of the Montreal Convention be equated with the concept of operating air carrier in Article 5(5) of Regulation No 261/2004? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May the concept of contracting carrier in Article 45 of the Montreal Convention be equated with the concept of operating air carrier in Article 5(5) of Regulation No 261/2004?

| 4. | May the concept of actual carrier referred to in Article 45 of the Montreal Convention be equated with the concept of operating air carrier in Article 5(5) of Regulation No 261/2004? |
| --- | --- |

4.

May the concept of actual carrier referred to in Article 45 of the Montreal Convention be equated with the concept of operating air carrier in Article 5(5) of Regulation No 261/2004?

---

(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).

---
Larry C. COBB, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4478

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2019

Charlie Cofer, Public Defender, and Elizabeth Hogan Webb, Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits. *See* § 948.06(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2014) ; *Blackshear v. State* , 838 So.2d 1228, 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (failing drug test constitutes a violation of law); *Alston v. State* , 646 So.2d 184, 185 (Fla. 1994) (same).

Roberts, Ray, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



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

Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
NGP Capital Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, L. Scott Biar, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer,
Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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:   November 8, 2012



| | /s/ L. Scott Biar                                                         
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | L. Scott Biar                                                             
| | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer
# C_2020279EN.01002201.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2020 — BD v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-150/20)

(2020/C 279/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BD

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Questions referred

Is Directive (EU) 2016/681 (1) compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) in relation to the following points:

| (1) | Are the PNR data to be transferred under the directive sufficiently specified, having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Are the PNR data to be transferred under the directive sufficiently specified, having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?

| (2) | In view of its scope and having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for sufficient objective differentiation when PNR data are collected and transferred, in relation to the type of flights and the threat level in a particular country and in relation to the comparison against databases and patterns? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of its scope and having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for sufficient objective differentiation when PNR data are collected and transferred, in relation to the type of flights and the threat level in a particular country and in relation to the comparison against databases and patterns?

| (3) | Is the blanket, indiscriminating retention period for all PNR data compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Is the blanket, indiscriminating retention period for all PNR data compatible with Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter?

| (4) | Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for adequate procedural protection of passengers in respect of the use of retained PNR data? |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive provide for adequate procedural protection of passengers in respect of the use of retained PNR data?

| (5) | Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive adequately safeguard the level of protection of European fundamental rights when PNR data are transferred to third country authorities by third countries? |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, does the directive adequately safeguard the level of protection of European fundamental rights when PNR data are transferred to third country authorities by third countries?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 132).

---
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge

1

for the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3296

___________

Thaddeus C. Pulla, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa

Amoco Oil Company, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 23, 1997

 Filed: May 1, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thaddeus C. Pulla appeals from the final order of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, reducing his punitive

1

damages award against Amoco Oil Company (Amoco) from $500,000 to $2,000,

following a remand from this court in Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co., 72 F.3d 648,

658-61 (8th Cir. 1995). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. 

Pulla does not challenge the size of the punitive damages award in

this appeal, only that the district court, not the jury, determined the

amount; he argues that, as a matter of state law, he was entitled to a new

trial. We agree with Amoco that, because 
-2-

Pulla first raised this issue in his motion for reconsideration, he has

waived his new trial argument. A motion to alter or amend a judgment

cannot be used to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the

issuance of judgment. See Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407,

414 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 (1988). In any event, Pulla's

argument that Iowa state law requires a new trial is without merit. The

original punitive damages award violated due process, see Pulla, 72 F.3d

at 661; state law was not involved in that decision. As the district court

made clear, its obligation was to establish a punitive damages award which

passed constitutional muster. We conclude the district court has done so.

See TXO Prod. Corp v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 453-54

(1993)(due process consideration imposes substantive limit of punitive

award). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Harris, as ChiefFinancial Officer, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed thisannual report on Form  10–K of IWO Holdings, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

3.    Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules  13a–15(e) and15d–15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

(b)    Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)    Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.    The registrant's othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant's board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(a)    All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting.

March 30, 2005

/s/   RICHARDHARRIS        Richard HarrisChief FinancialOfficer

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 6, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1126 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-907, K2025-908.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31690 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
In Re: Vida v. Brainvire Infotech Inc.

Case No. 23−42132−elm7 −7

Adv. No. 24−04075−elm

SUMMONS SERVICE EXECUTED

I,___________________________________________________________________________

of**_________________________________________________________________________

certify:

 If service was made by personal service, by residence service, or pursuant to state law, I further certify that I am,

and all times during service of process was, not less than 18 years of age and not a party to the matter concerning

which service of process was made;

 That on the __________ day of ____________________________________,_______ I served a copy of the

within summons, together with the complaint filed in this proceeding, on

the defendant in this proceeding, by {describe here the mode of service}

the said defendant at

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on ___________________ _____________________________

(Date) (Signature)

**____________________________________________________________________

State mailing address

Kenneth A. Hill

Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.

18th September 2024

Brainvire Infotech Inc.

First class mail, postage prepaid, & certified mail return receipt requested.

Brainvire Infotech Inc.

Reg. Agent: Chintan Shah

2201 W. Royal Ln., Suite 110

Irving, TX 75063

9/18/2024 /s/ Kenneth A. Hill

QSLWM, P.C. 2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800, Dallas, TX 75201

Case 24-04075-elm Doc 4 Filed 09/19/24 Entered 09/19/24 10:15:40 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Terry BLAND v. STATE

CR-16-0517

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 10, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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 Digital Network International Alliance, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Eppie Wong, CFO and 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/Eppie Wong



Eppie Wong,

 CFO and a director

December 28, 2006
# C_2021182EN.01002701.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/27

---

Appeal brought on 31 December 2020 by Ultrasun AG against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2020 in Case T-805/19, Ultrasun AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-722/20 P)

(2021/C 182/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Ultrasun AG (represented by: A. Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 25 March 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---