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
September 30, 2005 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
|November 9, 2005
Willie FEASTER, IV, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE O/B/O Tina Marie BRAVO, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3452

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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 7, 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 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1224 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1033, K2025-1032.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00050 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 25 , 2016.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00016

- CR

WARREN L. HOUSTON , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1386667

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly

weapon

. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation
of the record and dem onstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 , 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).2

On January 7, 2016 , this c ourt issued an opinion affirming appellant’s conviction. Appellant subsequently notified this court th at he had changed his address and requested an extension of time to file a pro se response

. On February 2, 2016, this court granted appellant’s motion, reinstated the appeal, and directed the trial court to afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure. On March 16, 2016, this court received confirmation that appellant received the trial record. Appellant received two additional extensions of time to file his pro se response until May 16, 2016. On June 2, 2016, this court received correspondence from appellant informing the court that he had not received a copy of counsel’s
Anders brief. On June 20, 2016, this court provided appellant a copy of counsel’s
brief. As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has
been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in
the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief

or a pro se r esponse when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for
review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Wise. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2( b).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

DOMINGO RIVERA, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No.

Defendant. ) 5:05-CV-025-C

ORDER

Plaintiff is appealing an adverse decision of the Defendant, Jo Anne B. Barnhart,

Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The United States Magistrate

Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on October 27, 2005. No written objections have

been filed. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the findings and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation are

hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court and that the above-styled and

numbered cause is hereby reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

Dated December 2, 2005.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 5:05-cv-00025-C Document 16 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 71
# C_2016364EN.01002801.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/28

---

Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France)

(Case T-457/16)

(2016/C 364/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schwamm & Cie. (Saarbrücken, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Le Coq de France’ — Application No 10 882 331

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 June 2016 in Case R 1786/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

---
Robert PERKINS v. Rashida NELSON

2016-CT-01789-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: December 18, 2018 Closed: April 4, 2019

Motion Desc: Appellants' Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
# C_2017437EN.01001602.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2017 — Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH v Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften

(Case C-552/17)

(2017/C 437/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the supply of a service which consists essentially in the provision of holiday accommodation and in which additional service components are to be regarded merely as ancillary to the principal supply, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 November 1992, Van Ginkel (C-163/91, EU:C:1992:435), subject to the special scheme for travel agents under Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the supply of a service which consists essentially in the provision of holiday accommodation and in which additional service components are to be regarded merely as ancillary to the principal supply, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 November 1992, Van Ginkel (C-163/91, EU:C:1992:435), subject to the special scheme for travel agents under Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

Van Ginkel

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, can that supply of service also be subject, in addition to the special scheme for travel agents under Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, to the tax rate reduction for the provision of holiday accommodation, as referred to in Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax in conjunction with Annex III, point (12)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, can that supply of service also be subject, in addition to the special scheme for travel agents under Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, to the tax rate reduction for the provision of holiday accommodation, as referred to in Article 98(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax in conjunction with Annex III, point (12)?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

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

| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                      |                                                               |                                 |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                                      | **THUNDERBALL                ENTERTAINMENT, INC.**                 |
|                                 |                                                          |                            |
| Date: August                11, 2005 | By:                                                      | /s/ Tim                J. Walsh |
|                                      | Tim J. WalshPresident and Chief Executive                  Officer |

|                                      |                                               |                                    |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                      | **THUNDERBALL                ENTERTAINMENT, INC.** |
|                                 |                                          |                               |
| Date: August                11, 2005 | By:                                      | /s/ Brian                D. Niebur |
|                                      | Brian D. NieburChief Financial Officer             |
Case 2:05-cv-00084-J Document 6 Filed 05/24/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 39
# C_2016111EN.01003701.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/37

---

Appeal brought on 13 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-9/14 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-59/16 P)

(2016/C 111/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 58 to 63 of the judgment itself; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 58 to 63 of the judgment itself;

| — | Consequently, annul the guidelines established for the year 2012 or declare that they are no longer applicable; order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, annul the guidelines established for the year 2012 or declare that they are no longer applicable; order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

| — | Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-9/14).

De Nicola

European Investment Bank

The grounds of appeal and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.

De Nicola

European Investment Bank

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40422

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRAIG T. WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CR-108-1

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Craig T.

Williams on appeal has requested leave to withdraw and has filed

a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Williams has not filed a response. Our independent review of the

record and the brief discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
No. 03-40422

-2-

MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Robert Fitzgerald RODGERS v. STATE

CR-16-1216

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
XM SATELLITE RADIO INC. and SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

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



The certification set forth below is being
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not deemed to be filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K accompanying this statement.



The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of XM Satellite Radio Inc. (Inc.), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on
the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-K of Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inc.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





| |  |  |  |                                                                                        
| |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | /s/ HUGH PANERO                                                                        
| |  |  |  | Hugh Panero President and Chief Executive
Officer March 16, 2006                       
| |  | 
| |  |  |  | /s/ JOSEPH J. EUTENEUER                                                                
| |  |  |  | Joseph J. Euteneuer Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer March 16, 2006



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Inc. and will be retained by Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.3**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

Dated: May 15, 2006 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Third D istrict Court of Ap peal State of F lorida Opinion filed March 6, 2024

. Not final until disposition of t imely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23 -03 08 Lower Tribunal No. 22 -95 0

________________ 

### Roy Otero, et al. , Appellant s , vs. 

### The Ame rican Automobile Association (Incorporate d)

and Auto Cl ub Group, I nc . ,

Appellee s

.

A n Appeal f rom the Circuit Court f or M iami -Da de C ounty, William Thomas , J udge. Panter, Panter & Sampedro, P.A., Joshua L. Wintle, an d David Sampedro , f

or a ppellant s

. Milber, M akris, P lousadis & S eiden, L LP, Crystal L. Arocha, and Michael J

. L ynott, f or a ppellee s

.
Before LOGUE, C. J. , a nd FERNANDEZ an d LINDSEY , JJ. PE R CURIAM.2 Affirmed. See McCain v. Fla. Power Corp. , 593 So. 2d 500, 503 (Fla. 1992) (“[D]uty exists as a matter of law and is not a factual question for the jury to decide.”) ; Jenkins v. W.L. Roberts, Inc. , 851 So. 2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“The duty element of negligence is a threshold legal question; if no legal duty exists, then no acti on for negligence may lie.”)

.