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 Annual Report of Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, 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: 

 

| (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: March 28, 2007 | By: | */s/ William R. Donaldson* |
|----------------------|-----|----------------------------|

*-----------------------------------------------*

William R. Donaldson

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp. and will be retained by Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 41 Filed 07/16/02 Page 1 of 6 PageID 170
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 41 Filed 07/16/02 Page 2 of 6 PageID 171
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 41 Filed 07/16/02 Page 3 of 6 PageID 172
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 41 Filed 07/16/02 Page 4 of 6 PageID 173
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 41 Filed 07/16/02 Page 5 of 6 PageID 174
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 41 Filed 07/16/02 Page 6 of 6 PageID 175
# C_2020137EN.01000301.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 February 2020 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Research Executive Agency (REA) (C-515/17 P) and Republic of Poland v Uniwersytet Wrocławski and Research Executive Agency (REA) (C-561/17 P)

(Joined Cases C-515/17 P and C-561/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation of parties in direct actions before the Courts of the European Union - Lawyer representing the applicant as a third party - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 137/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

(Case C-515/17 P)

Appellant: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, adwokaci, and by K. Słomka, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, avocat, and G. Materna, radca prawny)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents)

(Case C-561/17 P)

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, D. Lutostańska and A. Siwek-Slusarek, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, adwokaci, and by K. Słomka, radca prawny) and Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, avocat, and G. Materna, radca prawny)

Interveners in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents) and Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych (represented by: P.K. Rosiak and S. Patyra, radcowie prawni)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 13 June 2017, Uniwersytet Wrocławski v REA (T-137/16, not published, EU:T:2017:407); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 13 June 2017, Uniwersytet Wrocławski v REA (T-137/16, not published, EU:T:2017:407);

| 2. | Refers Case T-137/16 back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers Case T-137/16 back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.

---
Clovis MOSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1506

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Clovis Moss, appeals the final order entered by the postconviction court denying his motion for postconviction relief. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. In the motion, Appellant argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness at trial that would have undermined the victim's credibility. In summarily denying this ground, the postconviction court noted that the trial court had excluded the testimony referenced by Appellant and, therefore, counsel had no basis to call the witness. However, the record attached to the summary denial does not conclusively refute Appellant's claim as it does not reveal the source, nature, or extent of the trial court's evidentiary ruling.

Therefore, we reverse the summary denial of this ground for relief and remand for the postconviction court to either attach sufficient records to support the summary denial or to hold an evidentiary hearing. *See**Hird v. State*, 204 So.3d 483, 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing *Burgos v. State*, 181 So.3d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, HARRIS, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED BY


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the report on Form 10-Q of PetroHunter Energy Corporation (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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.





Date:
      May 15, 2009
            /s/Paul D.
      Maniscalco


Paul D. Maniscalco


Principal Accounting
Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6838

HARRY RIZER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PAUL KIRBY, Warden, Northern Regional Jail/

Correctional Facility,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-20-2)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry Rizer, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie K. Kiser, WEST VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Harry Rizer appeals the district court’s order denying his

“Motion for Stay of Judgment Pending Rehearing.” We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

as interlocutory. 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
Len GALE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5072

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Vacated. Granted. Appeal is dismissed.
#### E. C. Reeves, Maggie Childs, and Her Husband, Everett Childs; Ethel Jackson, Elector Lee or Electra Lee, Robert Jackson and Fred Jackson or Ferdinand Jackson, *Appellants,*v. Ames E. Barlow, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed October 19, 1927.

*Shepard & Wahl,*for Appellants;

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.-

-This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises,-it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

On Rehearing.

This was a suit to cancel a deed and remove cloud from title. Per Curiam Order of Affirmance was filed October 19th, 1927. Motion for rehearing was filed and granted, Now, on further consideration of this cause, it appears by *716inferences fairly drawn from testimony adduced for the cotnplainant, that the defendant, E. C. Reeves, was at the time of the institution of the suit in possession of the property involved, thereby showing that the complainant, claiming a legal title, was not entitled to maintain this suit. Sec. 3213, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920.

The decree should be reversed and the bill of complaint should be dismissed and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

Whitfield, Terrell, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
George TRICE, DOC #103231, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2501

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### 



[                   ]




---



##### 





EXECUTIVE
    
    -2-
    
    DATE




Term of Agreement


Change in Control


Termination Following Change in Control


General


Cause




---



##### 





EXECUTIVE
    
    -3-
    
    DATE




Good Reason












---



##### 



EXECUTIVE
    
    -4-
    
    DATE
      Notice of Termination
 Date of Termination, Etc.
       EXECUTIVE
    
    -5-
    
    DATE
  Compensation Upon Termination or During Disability




---



##### 



EXECUTIVE
    
    -6-
    
    DATE
    
       EXECUTIVE
    
    -7-
    
    DATE
   Successors, Binding Agreement
   Notice




---



##### 



EXECUTIVE
    
    -8-
    
    DATE
 Miscellaneous
 Severability
 Counterparts
 Arbitration, Dispute Resolution
 Arbitration Procedure
       EXECUTIVE
    
    -9-
    
    DATE
  Compensation During Dispute




---



##### 



EXECUTIVE
    
    -10-
    
    DATE
 Confidential Information and Non-Solicitation
    
      EXECUTIVE
    
    -11-
    
    DATE
  Entire Agreement
 No Rights of Employment
 Section 409A
    Sincerely,Chris SeaverPresident & CEO, Hydril Company
andHydril Company LP
      EXECUTIVE
    
    -12-
    
    DATE
 
 By:EXECUTIVE
      EXECUTIVE
    
    -13-
    
    DATE
      EXECUTIVE
    
    -14-
    
    DATE
  Term of Agreement
 Change in Control
 Termination Following Change in Control
 General
 Cause
      EXECUTIVE
    
    -15-
    
    DATE
  Good Reason
      EXECUTIVE
    
    -16-
    
    DATE
      Notice of Termination
 Date of Termination, Etc.
       EXECUTIVE
    
    -17-
    
    DATE
  Compensation Upon Termination or During Disability
      EXECUTIVE
    
    -18-
    
    DATE
    
       EXECUTIVE
    
    -19-
    
    DATE
   Successors, Binding Agreement
   Notice
      EXECUTIVE
    
    -20-
    
    DATE
 Miscellaneous
 Severability
 Counterparts
 Arbitration, Dispute Resolution
 Arbitration Procedure
       EXECUTIVE
    
    -21-
    
    DATE
  Compensation During Dispute
   Confidential Information and Non-Solicitation




---



##### 



EXECUTIVE
    
    -22-
    
    DATE




---



##### 



EXECUTIVE
    
    -23-
    
    DATE
 Entire Agreement
 No Rights of Employment
 Section 409A




---



##### 



EXECUTIVE
    
    -24-
    
    DATE
  Sincerely,Name:Title: [With each of Hydril Company andHydril
Company LP]
 
 By:Christopher T. Seaver
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_education(17)
              - science_faqs(14)
              - science_science(750)
              - products_data(356)
              - products_maps(78)
              - products_publications(4311)
              - products_software(12)
              - products_web_tools(51)
              - multimedia_audio(105)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(96)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(9)
              - multimedia_before_after(17)
              - multimedia_image(1659)
              - multimedia_image-141769(49)
              - multimedia_image-141770(14)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1466)
              - multimedia_image-141772(11)
              - multimedia_image-141774(8)
              - multimedia_image-141775(73)
              - multimedia_image-141776(27)
              - multimedia_image-204460(5)
              - (-)multimedia_image-207195(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(20)
              - multimedia_video(419)
              - multimedia_video-149194(144)
              - multimedia_video-149195(141)
              - multimedia_video-149196(26)
              - multimedia_video-149197(35)
              - multimedia_video-149198(17)
              - multimedia_video-149225(7)
              - multimedia_webcam(22)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(16)
              - multimedia_webcam-141786(4)
              - documents_file(41)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149208(6)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149212(1)
              - documents_file-149214(6)
              - documents_file-149216(4)
              - documents_file-149217(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(10)
              - documents_file-149222(3)
              - news_news-149245(99)
              - news_news-149246(8)
              - news_news-149248(28)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(51)
              - news_newsletters(17)
              - news_other_news(101)
              - connect_social_media(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(104)
              - (-)other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(55)

## By Location

              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - wisconsin(1)

## By Year

Screenshots        April 11, 2024        QR code for Alaska Flood Observation Facebook Group

Screenshots        April 11, 2024        QR code for DGGS Photo Database of Flooding in Alaska

About        February 5, 2024        California's History of Large Storms & Floods

About        November 15, 2023        2023 Quarter 4 USGS Stream Discharge and National Snow and Ice Data Center Data

About        June 9, 2023        River and Coastal Processes Team
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 102 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prevent a species that 

is not native to the United States from being listed as an endangered 

species or a threatened species, to prohibit certain types of financial 

assistance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prevent 

a species that is not native to the United States from 

being listed as an endangered species or a threatened 

species, to prohibit certain types of financial assistance, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Sovereignty 

5 and Species Protection Act of 2025’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 102 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON LISTING OF NONNATIVE SPECIES 

2 AND PROVISION OF CERTAIN FINANCIAL AS3 SISTANCE. 

4 (a) LIMITATION ON LISTING OF NONNATIVE SPE5 CIES.—Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 

6 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following: 

8 ‘‘(4) NONNATIVE SPECIES.—The Secretary may 

9 not determine that a species is an endangered spe10 cies or a threatened species pursuant to this section 

11 if such species is not native to the United States.’’. 

12 (b) LIMITATION ON PROVISION OF CERTAIN FINAN13 CIAL ASSISTANCE.—Section 8(a) of the Endangered Spe14 cies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) is amended— 

15 (1) by striking ‘‘As a demonstration of’’ and in16 serting the following: 

17 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—As a demonstration of’’; 

18 (2) by striking ‘‘(which includes, but is not lim19 ited to, the acquisition, by lease or otherwise, of 

20 lands, waters, or interests therein)’’; and 

21 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

22 ‘‘(2) PROHIBITION ON PURCHASING LAND IN A

23 FOREIGN COUNTRY.—No financial assistance pro24 vided under paragraph (1) may be used to acquire, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 102 IH

1 by lease or otherwise, lands, waters, or other inter2 ests in a foreign country.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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


     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of  Interactive  Motorsports  and
Entertainment  Corp.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, William R. Donaldson, Chief Executive 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 the best of 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.

May 15, 2006                                   /s/ William R. Donaldson
                                               -------------------------------
                                               William R. Donaldson
                                               Chairman, President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Interactive Motorsports and Entertainment Corp. and will be retained
by  Interactive  Motorsports  and  Entertainment  Corp.  and  furnished  to  the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EX PARTE William C. COLEMAN

1160662 (CR-15-1497)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Arnoldo MELENDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-250

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 23, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
J. B., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0039

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JAMES DEREK JUAN,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 17-10050 D.C. No. 4:16-cr-01347-CKJ-DTF-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Subm itted April 13, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, * * District Judge. Jam es Derek Juan appeals the im position of a sex offender evaluation condition of supervised release. We review for abuse of discretion, United States v. Gnirke , 775 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015), and we vacate the condition. 

# FILED
MAY 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

* * The Honorable Solom on Oliver, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.The sex offender evaluation condition is substantively unreasonable. See

United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Juan’s only sexual offense occurred nearly three decades ago, when Juan was twelve. In the intervening years, despite Juan’s frequent contact with and m onitoring by law enforcem ent, there is no evidence of any other history or characteristic of inappropriate sexual conduct. Furtherm ore, Juan’s offense of conviction is entirely unrelated to the facts and circum stances of his conduct as a child. Cf. United States v. Johnson , 697 F.3d 1249, 1251 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Johnson’s current offense involved possession of a gun, the sam e sort of weapon he used as a sexual offender.”). Thus, there is no substantial nexus between the conduct underlying Juan’s twenty-seven-year-old juvenile adjudication and any public safety rationale that justifies the im position of the sex offender evaluation condition today. 1 See United States v. Wise , 391 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. T.M. , 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Supervised release conditions predicated upon twenty-year-old incidents, without m ore, do not prom ote the goals of public protection and deterrence.”). While it is rare that we would find that an im position of a condition of supervised release was an abuse of discretion, where, as here,

1 We also note that neither the Probation Officer nor the governm ent sought such a condition. 2there is insufficient basis in the record for its im position, we m ust surely vacate the

condition. 2 REVERSED; SUPERVISED RELEASE CONDITION VACATED.

2 We need not reach Juan’s rem aining argum ents challenging the im position of the sex offender evaluation condition of supervised release. 3
W.G.T Consultants Ltd

1016-470 Granville Street

Vancouver, B.C.

V6C 1V5

Canada

Tel: 604-317-8161













Imperial Consolidated Capital

June 23, 2004

206-475 Howe Street

Vancouver, BC.

Canada











Gentlemen:





RE: Consent







With regards to my report on the Triune Property located in the Revelstoke Mining

Division and dated September 15, 2003.  Please accept this as my consent for you to use the report and all information contained within, for the Form 10SB filing process with the United States Securities and Exchange Commision regarding Imperial Consolidated Capital.











Yours Very Truly,



/s/ "William G. Timmins"

W.G.T. Consultants Ltd.
Case 3:04-cv-01227-M Document 5 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 103