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

## ** **

**METALS USA, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

**PURUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Metals USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, C.Lourenço Gonçalves, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               TheAnnual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theCompany.

 
| Dated: March 9,  2005 | /s/ C. Lourenço  Gonçalves |   |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | C. Lourenço Gonçalves      |
|                       | Chief  Executive Officer             |

 

Theforegoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separatedisclosure statement.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________ No. 18

- 3003

________________ PATRICE SCOTT

- MONCRIEFF , Appellant

v. THE LOST TRAILS, LLC, d/b/a Lost Trails ATV Adventures; Pennsylvania Ambulance, LLC, d/b/a Penns ylvania Ambulance

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 3:16

- cv

- 1105 ) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Karoline Mehalchick

______________ Submitted Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a) July 8 , 201 9

______________

Before: McKEE, ROTH, RENDELL, Circuit Judge s (Filed: August 14, 2019)

____________ OPINION ∗

____________ MCKEE, Circuit Judge

.

∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 Patrice Scott

- Moncrieff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Lo st Trail s in the suit she filed to recover for injuries suffered in an All

- Terrain
Vehicle (“ATV”) accident on property owned by Lost Trail s . In the opinion filed August 29, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick carefully and thoroughly explained why the defendant, Lost Trail s LLC, was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the claims brought by Ms. Scott

- Moncrieff. 1 We will affirm the Order granting summary judgment substantially for the reasons set forth in that opinion. We add onl y that, in addition to the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, it is uncontested that Ms.
Scott

- Moncrief was an experienced professional ATV rider with 27 years of off

- road ATV experience. The dangers inherent in the activity that s h e was engaging in were well known to her and, as the Magistrate Judge explained, the waiver of liability she had previously signed was clear and further explained the dangerous nature of th at activity

. 2 Accordingly, we will affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of L ost
T rails

.

1 The parties consented to proceed before the Magistrat e Judge. 2 See Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc. , 762 A.2d 339, 345

– 46 (Pa. 2000) ; 42 Pa. Con. Stat

. § 7102(b.3)(2) (“The doctrine of kn owing voluntary assumption of risk shall apply to all actions to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or injury to person or property brought against any off

- road vehicle rid ing area operator.”).
© 2023 Fannie Mae

 Our Campus 

Interview 

Process

Internship Positions

Step 1

One 30-minute behavioral phone 

screening with a recruiter.

Step 2

One or two 45-minute virtual interviews 

with a member of our interview team.

1

2

Full-time Positions

Step 1

One 30-minute behavioral phone 

screening with a recruiter.

Step 2

One 45-minute virtual interview with a 

member of our interview team.

Step 3

Selected candidates will be invited 

for a second round of two 45-minute 

virtual interviews with members of our 

interview team. 

1

2

3

Getting To Know You

As a student, we know the interview process can be confusing. To support your 

needs and help you prepare, our recruiters have compiled this guide for what 

to expect while interviewing. Our interview days are held throughout the fall 

and spring campus recruiting seasons and the steps in the process differ for 

internships and full-time positions. 
© 2023 Fannie Mae

In addition to the four interview types, there are 

some common questions that are often asked 

in interviews. Prepare your answers in advance 

so you can answer confidently.

Tell us about yourself.

Summarize your work and study experience 

and talk about your goals.

Why do you want to work for us? 

Use your research about the job and 

organization to answer this question.

What makes you the best person for this job? 

Explain how your work style, skills, and 

experience make you ideal for the job.

What are your strengths and weaknesses?

Discuss your strengths and then talk about how 

you overcome your weaknesses.

Our Interview Types Other Common Questions

All our interviews include behavioral interview 

questions. From there, the types of interview questions 

are tailored to the position. We categorize our interview 

questions into four types, and your recruiter can help 

clarify what type/s of questions you should expect.

Type 3: Technical 

Questions are challenges set to engage 

you and assess your technical aptitude, 

which may require sharing your screen 

for a code review.

Example: What is SAN, and how is 

it used?

Type 4: Case 

Questions are designed to examine how 

you think about a problem and how you 

would solve it.

Example: How many automobiles are 

sold in Virginia each year?

Type 2: Role Specific

Questions are designed to test for certain 

skills or knowledge related to the role.

Example: What accounting 

applications are you familiar with?

Type 1: Behavioral 

Included in all interviews; Questions test for 

skills based on your previous experience.

Example: Describe a time when you 

saw a problem and took the initiative 

to correct it.

Get more tips to help you 

prepare to interview ›
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 1 of 27 PageID 1711
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 2 of 27 PageID 1712
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 3 of 27 PageID 1713
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 4 of 27 PageID 1714
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 5 of 27 PageID 1715
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 6 of 27 PageID 1716
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 7 of 27 PageID 1717
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 8 of 27 PageID 1718
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 9 of 27 PageID 1719
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 10 of 27 PageID 1720
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 11 of 27 PageID 1721
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 12 of 27 PageID 1722
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 13 of 27 PageID 1723
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 14 of 27 PageID 1724
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 15 of 27 PageID 1725
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 16 of 27 PageID 1726
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 17 of 27 PageID 1727
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 18 of 27 PageID 1728
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 19 of 27 PageID 1729
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 20 of 27 PageID 1730
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 21 of 27 PageID 1731
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 22 of 27 PageID 1732
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 23 of 27 PageID 1733
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 24 of 27 PageID 1734
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 25 of 27 PageID 1735
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 26 of 27 PageID 1736
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 113 Filed 02/01/05 Page 27 of 27 PageID 1737
Chris D. Anderson

State Bar No. 0398686

ALLMAND LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.

860 Airport Freeway, Suite 401

Hurst, TX 76054

214.265.0123 Phone

214.265.1979 Fax

ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

IN RE:

JOSHUA LEE PATTERSON § CASE NO. 23-40880-ELM-7

§

Debtor, § CHAPTER 7

____________________________________§____________________________________

§

Movant,

§

§

VS. §

§

JOSHUA LEE PATTERSON §

§

Debtor §

DEBTOR'S UNOPPOSED RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY

FILED BY WILDCAT LENDING

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW JOSHUA LEE PATTERSON, Respondent in the above-styled 

and numbered cause and in response to the Motion for Relief from Stay of Wildcat Lending

("Movant") and in regard to the collateral referenced in said Motion, Debtor respectfully shows:

1. Debtor is unopposed to Wildcat Lending's Motion for Relief from Stay.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Debtor prays for the relief requested 

and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.

Dated: June 2, 2023.

WILDCAT LENDING 

Case 23-40880-elm7 Doc 13 Filed 06/02/23 Entered 06/02/23 11:57:31 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
Respectfully Submitted,

ALLMAND LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.

/s/ Chris D. Anderson 

Chris D. Anderson

State Bar No. 0398686

ALLMAND LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.

860 Airport Freeway, Suite 401

Hurst, TX 76054

214.265.0123 Phone

214.265.1979 Fax

ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR

Case 23-40880-elm7 Doc 13 Filed 06/02/23 Entered 06/02/23 11:57:31 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 2, 2023, a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing Unopposed Response to Motion For Relief From Stay was served on the following 

parties in interest by first class mail:

Trustee

Shawn K. Brown 

PO Box 93749 

Southlake, TX 76092

U.S. Trustee

Commerce St., Rm. 976

Dallas, TX 75242

DEBTOR 

Joshua Lee Patterson

1910 Crestridge Dr

Arlington, TX 76013

OPPOSING COUNSEL

GRAY REED 

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 

Dallas, Texas 75201

By: /s/ Chris D. Anderson

Chris D. Anderson

State Bar No. 0398686

Case 23-40880-elm7 Doc 13 Filed 06/02/23 Entered 06/02/23 11:57:31 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
George Edward JACKSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0077

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

VS. ) CASE NO. 3:03-CR-351-P(01)

 )

JOSE ANTUNES-AGUIRRE )

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a 

Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning

Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been filed

within ten days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District

Judge is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning

the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court

accepts the plea of guilty and Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty. Sentence will be imposed in

accordance with the Court’s scheduling order.

SIGNED this 13 day of February 2007. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:03-cr-00351-D Document 97 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 215
# C_2016098EN.01005502.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/55

---

Action brought on 19 January 2016 — Karl Conzelmann v OHIM (LIKE IT)

(Case T-21/16)

(2016/C 098/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Karl Conzelmann GmbH & Co. KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘LIKE IT’ — Application No 13 180 104

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2015 in Case R 223/2015-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(2) of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(2) of that regulation.

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Jeffrey A. Brodsky, certify that:

1.        I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NTL Europe, Inc.;

2.        Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.        The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 we 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 quarterly 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 quarterly 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 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 officers 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 registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)        all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)        any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

Date: September 17, 2003/s/ JEFFREY A. BRODSKYJeffrey A. BrodskyPresident and Chief Executive Officer

 

----
# C_2018436EN.01000901.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite v Evelina Kamenova

(Case C-105/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 2(b) and (d) - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 2(2) - Concepts of ‘trader’ and ‘commercial practices’))

(2018/C 436/09)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite

Defendant: Evelina Kamenova

Other party: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varna

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) and Article 2(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person, such as the defendant in the main proceedings, who publishes simultaneously on a website a number of advertisements offering new and second-hand goods for sale can be classified as a ‘trader’, and such an activity can constitute a ‘commercial practice’, only if that person is acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, this being a matter for the national court to determine, in the light of all relevant circumstances of the individual case.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---
# C_2023235EN.01002401.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — EVH v Commission

(Case T-312/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of a ‘single concentration’ - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to be heard - Definition of the market - Analysis period - Analysis of market power - Decisive influence - Manifest errors of assessment - Due diligence obligation)

(2023/C 235/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EVH GmbH (Halle-sur-Saale, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, and by T. Funke and A. Dlouhy, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EVH GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EVH GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
# C_2022002EN.01003002.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXYMLA)

(Case T-248/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark RUXYMLA - Earlier EU word mark RUXIMERA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 2/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2020 (Case R 1878/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer and Stada Arzneimittel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.

---
NO. 07-03-0267-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JUNE 6, 2003

______________________________

IN RE GLENDA MARNEY, RELATOR

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

ON MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

AND PETITION FOR MANDAMUS

Relator Glenda Marney has submitted a petition for writ of mandamus addressed

to the 99th District Court, Lubbock County, that would direct the court to disqualify counsel

for real party in interest United Supermarkets, Ltd., et al. from Cause No. 2002-517,191

pending in that court. Relator also moves for a stay of proceedings in that cause, which

is set for trial on June 16, 2003. Finding that relator has not presented a record on which

the requested relief can be granted, we overrule the motion for a stay, and deny the

petition for writ of mandamus. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d).

Per Curiam