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

**CertificationPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VWR International, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JohnM. Ballbach, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: May 11, 2006                       |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| /s/ John M. Ballbach                           |   |   |
| Name: John M. Ballbach                         |   |   |
| Title:*President and Chief  Executive Officer* |   |   |

 

----
J.D. v. Cullman County DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160584

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 3, 2017

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DIANN H. VIDEAN, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§ No. 3:04-CV-1003-P

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, § 

Commissioner of SSA, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the

Court finds that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge are adopted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, the final decision

of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded with the instructions enumerated by the United

States Magistrate Judge in his Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation.

SO ORDERED.

Signed this 8 day of August 2006. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01003-P Document 24 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 110
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7292

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OTIS SAMUEL, JR., a/k/a O,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:13-cr-00321-RBH-1)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otis Samuel, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Otis Samuel, Jr., appeals the district court’s order 

denying Samuel’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for 

sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual (2014). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. United States v. Samuel, No. 4:13–cr–00321–RBH–1 

(D.S.C. July 24, 2015); see United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 

337, 340 (4th Cir. 2011). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2019025EN.01001001.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Sofina SA, Rebelco SA, Sidro SA v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

(Case C-575/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Withholding tax on the gross amount of nationally sourced dividends paid to non-resident companies - Deferral of taxation of dividends paid to a resident company in the event of a loss-making year - Difference in treatment - Justification - Comparability - Balanced distribution of the powers of taxation between the Member States - Effective collection of tax - Proportionality - Discrimination))

(2019/C 25/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sofina SA, Rebelco SA, Sidro SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the dividends paid by a resident company are subject to a withholding tax when they are received by a non-resident company, whereas, when such dividends are received by a resident company, under the general corporation tax rules they are subject to taxation at the end of the financial year in which they were received only if the latter company was profitable in that financial year, and such taxation may, where applicable, never be levied if that company ceases trading without becoming profitable after receiving those dividends.

---

(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

---
Thomas Earl TUCKER v. STATE

CR-16-0918

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 10, 2017

Reh. denied.
# C_2018190EN.01002004.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Anja Oehlke, Wolfgang Oehlke v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-533/17) (1)

1

(2018/C 190/36)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.

1

---
Erin W. PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. Donald E. PHILLIPS, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4114

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
S.G., Mother of G.O., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3434

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EX PARTE David PERRY

1160552 (2150719)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
# C_2016383EN.01002101.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/21

---

Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (LegalPro)

(Case T-472/16)

(2016/C 383/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LegalPro’ — Application No 13 954 177

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2016 in Case R 146/2016-4

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 EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 24-32921-mvl13    Doc 3    Filed 09/24/24    Entered 09/24/24 10:46:42    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 1
EX PARTE Mary TYLER

(In re Clark Property Management, LLC v. Mary Tyler)

2170175

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b)
AND 15d-14(b)


(Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard
Nathan, 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 the operation of the
      Company.





/s/Richard
      Nathan(Principal
      Financial Officer)
                Richard
      Nathan, Inc.





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.





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.
# C_2018328EN.01001302.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’ v Gilead Sciences Inc.

(Case C-121/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) - Originator medicines and generic medicines - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(a) - Conditions for obtaining - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria for assessment))

(2018/C 328/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Teva UK Ltd, Accord Healthcare Ltd, Lupin Ltd, Lupin (Europe) Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd, trading as ‘Mylan’

Defendant: Gilead Sciences Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, must be interpreted as meaning that a product composed of several active ingredients with a combined effect is ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ within the meaning of that provision where, even if the combination of active ingredients of which that product is composed is not expressly mentioned in the claims of the basic patent, those claims relate necessarily and specifically to that combination. For that purpose, from the point of view of a person skilled in the art and on the basis of the prior art at the filing date or priority date of the basic patent:

| — | the combination of those active ingredients must necessarily, in the light of the description and drawings of that patent, fall under the invention covered by that patent, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the combination of those active ingredients must necessarily, in the light of the description and drawings of that patent, fall under the invention covered by that patent, and

| — | each of those active ingredients must be specifically identifiable, in the light of all the information disclosed by that patent. |
| --- | --- |

—

each of those active ingredients must be specifically identifiable, in the light of all the information disclosed by that patent.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 80 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 80

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Armed Services 
                in the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2025

    Mr. Rogers of Alabama (for himself and Mr. Smith of Washington) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                        on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Armed Services 
                in the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Armed Services (hereafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $25,977,070 for the One Hundred 
Nineteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $12,988,535 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2025, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2026; and
            (2) not more than $12,988,535 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2026, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2027.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
EX PARTE Joe Daniel HOLT, Jr.

CR-16-1113

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SOUTHERN HERITAGE BANCSHARES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

***SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Southern Heritage Bank (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Lee Stewart, President ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ J. Lee Stewart |   |
|--------------------|--------|
| J. Lee Stewart     |
| President          |
| May 16, 2006       |

 

----
# C_2018352EN.01001201.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Gerhard Prenninger and Others v Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

(Case C-329/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Annex II - Point 1(d) - Concept of ‘deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use’ - Clearance of a path in a forest in connection with the construction and operation of an overhead electrical power line))

(2018/C 352/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gerhard Prenninger, Karl Helmberger, Franziska Zimmer, Franz Scharinger, Norbert Pühringer, Agrargemeinschaft Pettenbach, Marktgemeinde Vorchdorf, Marktgemeinde Pettenbach, Gemeinde Steinbach am Ziehberg

Defendant: Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

intervener: Netz Oberösterreich GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Point 1(d) of Annex II to Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the clearance of a path in a forest for the purpose of the construction and operation of an overhead electrical power line, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and for the duration of its lawful existence is covered by the concept of ‘deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

---
J.W. v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160875

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, Unite d States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable William A. Knox, United States Ma gistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
2 Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3186

___________ Monty Lee Eddings, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. State of Missouri, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 16, 2009 Filed: June 18, 2009

___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Monty Lee Eddings appeals the district court’s 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal without prejudice of his pro se civil action ag ainst the State of Missouri. The district court’s dismissal was based upon an application of the Younger 2abstention doctrine. Upon de novo review of the s ection 1915A dismissal, see Cooper v. Schriro , 189 F.3d-2- 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), a nd review of the abstention holding for an abuse of discretion, see Norwood v. Dickey , 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005), we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

RAFAEL RIOS-BARRAZA, a.k.a. Rafa, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10200

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00066-NVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 26, 2016** 

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Rafael Rios-Barraza appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 78-month sentence for possession with

intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rios-Barraza’s

FILED

AUG 01 2016

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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Rios-Barraza the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed. 

Rios-Barraza waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

2 15-10200
# C_2019319EN.01001201.xml

| 23.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Azienda Napoletana Mobilità SpA

(Case C-659/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Employment aid - Exemption from social security contributions in connection with training and work experience contracts - Decision 2000/128/EC - Aid granted by Italy to promote employment - Aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Applicability of Decision 2000/128/EC to an undertaking exclusively providing local public transport services which were directly awarded to it by a municipality - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘distortion of competition’ - Concept of ‘effect on trade’ between Member States)

(2019/C 319/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Respondent: Azienda Napoletana Mobilità SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Subject to verifications which are to be made by the referring court, Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment must be interpreted as applying to an undertaking, such as that in the main proceedings, which, on the basis of a direct and exclusive award by a municipality, provided local public transport services and benefited from reductions in social security contributions under national legislation which was declared by that decision to be incompatible, in part, with the prohibition laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.

---