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, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the “Report”), each of 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: December 6, 2006 | 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.*
Rita WASHINGTON v. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF REFORM

2160961

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 10, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Proguard Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, I, Frank Bauer, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to the Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three
months ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended

     2.  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

                                 /s/ Frank Bauer
                                 ----------------------
                                 Frank Bauer
                                 Chief Executive Officer

May 11, 2007




                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Proguard Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, I, Norman Becker, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to the Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three
months ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended

     2.  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


                                 /s/ Norman Becker
                                 ----------------------
                                 Norman Becker
                                 Chief Financial Officer

May 11, 2007
EX PARTE Jamel HALL

CR-16-1181

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 25, 2017

Transferred to Shelby Cir. Ct.
Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Lyann GOUDIE, Esq., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4472

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. William Wayne LEE, Jr.

No. 2018-KP-0779

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

*445Relator has now fully litigated his third application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

STEPHEN ALLARD, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0584-K

 § 

QUINLAN PEST CONTROL CO. INC §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any

objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District

Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.

Defendant’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings Conclusions, and

Recommendations, filed on September 28, 2011, are OVERRULED.

By separate judgment, Defendant Quinlan Pest Control Co., Inc.’s motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against it under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim

will be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim will be DISMISSED with prejudice.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss any remaining state law claims against it under

Rule 12(b)(1) will be DENIED. The Court declines to exercise supplemental

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00584-K Document 69 Filed 10/20/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 364
2

jurisdiction over any such claims against Defendant, however, and they will be

DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing them in state court.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 20 day of October, 2011.

th

 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00584-K Document 69 Filed 10/20/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID 365
|   | Deloitte Accountants B.V.Orlyplein 101043 DP AmsterdamP.O.Box 581101040 HC AmsterdamNetherlands Tel: +31 (0)88 288 2888Fax: +31 (0)88 288 9739www.deloitte.nl  |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Deloitte Accountants B.V. Deloitte Accountants B.V.March 27, 2013 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

| The ‘General Terms and Conditions for Services Deloitte Netherlands, November 2010’ registered at the Chamber of Commerce under number 24362837 apply to all agreements under which Deloitte performs services. |   | Member ofDeloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
| Deloitte Accountants B.V. is registered with the Trade Register of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Rotterdam number 24362853.                                                                                       |   |                                      |

----
# Amending Proclamation 8336 To Read, “Establishment of the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument” and Amending Proclamation 9173 To Read, “Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument Expansion”

WHEREAS, Proclamation 8336 of January 6, 2009, established the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (Monument); and

WHEREAS, Proclamation 9173 of September 25, 2014, established the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion (Monument Expansion);

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, do amend Proclamation 8336 and Proclamation 9173 for the purposes of updating the name of the Monument and the Monument Expansion to recognize the connection of these areas with the cultural heritage of the Indigenous Peoples and communities of the Pacific Islands, and of making the following conforming changes and corrections:

**Section 1**                    . The title of Proclamation 8336 is amended to read, “Establishment of the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument.”                

**Sec. 2**                    . The title of Proclamation 9173 is amended to read, “Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument Expansion.”                

**Sec. 3**                    . The phrase “Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument” is amended to read, “Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument,” wherever it appears in Proclamation 8336 and Proclamation 9173.                 

**Sec. 4**                    . The titles of the maps of the Monument accompanying Proclamation 8336 are amended to read, “Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument.”                

**Sec. 5**                    . The titles of the maps of the Monument Expansion accompanying Proclamation 9173 are amended to read, “Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument Expansion.”                

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.

[FR Doc. 2025-00649

Billing code 3395-F4-P
Joshua RIZACK, As Plan Administrator of the Post-Confirmation Estate of West End Financial Advisors LLC, et al., Appellant, v. SIGNATURE BANK, N.A., Chris Efstratiou and Charles Liggio, Appellees.

No. 4D18-546

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 20, 2019]

Kristen M. Fiore of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, Steven R. Wirth of Akerman LLP, Tampa, Christine B. Gardner of Akerman LLP, West Palm Beach, Jay Cohen of Cohen, Blostein & Ayala, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and James Wes Christian of Christian, Jewell & Smith, LLP, Houston, TX, for appellants.

William E. Davis and Akiesha Gilcrist Sainvil of Foley & Lardner LLP, Miami, John E. Westerman, Jeffrey A. Miller, and Michael E. Planell of Westerman, Ball, Ederer, Miller, Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP, Uniondale, NY for appellees.

Per Curiam.

Appellants, including several Florida investors, appeal the trial court's dismissal of their complaint against Appellees with prejudice due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. They assert that the trial court should have permitted jurisdictional discovery. We agree.

*25There is no dispute that Appellants carried their initial burden by pleading long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2018). *See**Becker v. Hooshmand* , 841 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Thereafter, both parties submitted several affidavits either in support of or in opposition to the assertion that the lower court possessed personal jurisdiction over Appellees. *See**id.* ; *accord**Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais* , 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989) ; *McMillan v. Troutman* , 740 So.2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

"We review a court's order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction *de novo* ." *Rolls-Royce, PLC v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.* , 239 So.3d 709, 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Taking the contents of the affidavits as true, we find that they could not be sufficiently harmonized to provide the trial court with the ability to make its decision based solely upon the affidavits. *See**McMillan* , 740 So.2d at 1228 ; *accord**Venetian Salami* , 554 So.2d at 502-03. Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to allow the parties to conduct *limited* jurisdictional discovery to be presented via affidavit or at an evidentiary hearing. *See**Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co. v. Leondakos* , 602 So.2d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 1992) ; *accord**Rolls-Royce,*239 So.3d at 714 ; *Packaging & Distrib. Res., LLC v. Duke Realty Ltd.* , 194 So.3d 509, 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). "Once discovery on the jurisdictional issue is concluded, the procedure outlined in *Venetian Salami* should be followed by the trial court." *Gleneagle* , 602 So.2d at 1284.

*Reversed and remanded.*

May, Ciklin and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 35 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 35

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum 
   and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, 
                  Including Netting and Exemptions''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2025

 Mr. Pfluger (for himself, Mr. Arrington, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Evans of 
Colorado, Mr. Carey, Mr. Rulli, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Joyce of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Latta, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Carter 
   of Georgia, and Mrs. Miller-Meeks) submitted the following joint 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum 
   and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, 
                  Including Netting and Exemptions''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: 
Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and 
Exemptions'' (89 Fed. Reg. 91094 (November 18, 2024)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.2


 


 


 


 


 


October 2, 2016


 


LEAP Development, LLC


11410 Long Pine Drive


Houston, Texas 77077


 


 


Re:       Amendment of Consulting
Agreement


 


Dear Robert:


 


This letter constitutes an amendment, effective
immediately, to the consulting agreement between you and Synthesis Energy Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) dated effective
February 15, 2016 (the “Consulting Agreement”). The compensation to be paid to you for Ongoing Services (as defined
in the Consulting Agreement) shall be increased to $15,000 per month for the remainder of the final 5 months of the Consulting
Agreement, which ends on February 15, 2017.


 


This letter does not affect any other terms
of the Consulting Agreement. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please let me know.


 


SYNTHESIS ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.


 


 


/s/ DeLome Fair                                           


DeLome Fair


President and Chief Executive Officer


 


Acknowledged and Agreed on


October 2, 2016


 


 


LEAP Development, LLC


 


/s/ Robert Rigdon                               


Robert Rigdon


Managing Member
# C_2018005EN.01001702.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/17

---

Appeal brought on 24 August 2017 by Uniwersytet Wrocławski against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 13 June 2017 in Case T-137/16, Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Research Executive Agency (REA)

(Case C-515/17 P)

(2018/C 005/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

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

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order under appeal;

| — | declare that the action was properly brought; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the action was properly brought;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings to pay all of the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. That ground is based on the submission that the interpretation given by the General Court regarding the application of that provision is flawed and contrary to the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in so far as it does not take into consideration the fact that the legal relationship indicated between the legal adviser (radca prawny) and the university is based on the independence and equality of the parties, and that, by its very nature, the profession of legal adviser in the Polish legal system is characterised by independence and an absence of subordination in relation to third parties and is also a profession of public trust.

radca prawny

The second ground of appeal alleges that the General Court infringed Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of 23 April 2015. That ground is based on the submission that the General Court did not properly set out the reasons for its decision, because, in the grounds of the order under appeal, it provided an abstract statement and failed to link the view expressed to the facts of the present case, thereby significantly limiting the possibility for the appellant to put forward a proper defence.

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00169-CR

EX PARTE ISIAH SCOTT

Original Proceeding

From the 87th District Court

Leon County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22-0120CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Isiah Scott has filed a document that we have construed as an original application 

for a writ of habeas corpus. The courts of appeals, however, have no original habeascorpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. Ex parte Braswell, 630 S.W.3d 600, 601 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 2021, orig. proceeding); Ex parte Martinez, 175 S.W.3d 510, 512–13 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding) (“Our law requires post-conviction 

applications for writs of habeas corpus, for felony cases in which the death penalty was 

not assessed, to be filed in the court of original conviction, made returnable to the Texas 
Ex parte Isiah Scott Page 2

Court of Criminal Appeals.”) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a)–(b)). 

Accordingly, this proceeding is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 20, 2024

Do not publish

[OT06]
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of the Principal Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of On4 Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended January 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Cameron Robb, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:   September 29, 2010





By:      /s/ Cameron Robb


Cameron Robb


President and Chief Executive Officer
TRUSTEE’S NOTICE OF CONTINUED § 341 MEETING (467363) PAGE 1 OF 2

Jerry C. Alexander

Texas Bar No. 00993500

alexanderj@passmanjones.com

PASSMAN & JONES

1201 Elm Street, Suite 2500

Dallas, Texas 75270-2500

(214) 742-2121 Telephone

(214) 748-7949 Facsimile

INTERIM COUNSEL TO TRUSTEE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE:

HIGHLAND SELECT EQUITY

MASTER FUND, L.P.

Debtor,

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 23-31037 swe7

(Chapter 7)

TRUSTEE’S NOTICE OF CONTINUED § 341 MEETING

Please be advised that the continuation of the Meeting of Creditors pertaining to the 

captioned matter, which had been scheduled for July 18, 2023, has been re-scheduled and will 

now take place on July 26, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. The meeting will be conducted telephonically at 

either 877-558-6034 or 517-233-6341, Participant Code 4157023. All parties disclosed on the 

attached service list are being served a copy of this notice.

/s/ Jerry C. Alexander

Jerry C. Alexander

Texas Bar No. 00993500

alexanderj@passmanjones.com

PASSMAN & JONES, P.C.

1201 Elm Street, Suite 2500

Dallas, Texas 75270-2599

(214) 742-2121 Telephone

(214) 748-7949 Facsimile

Interim Counsel for 

Scott M. Seidel, Chapter 7 Trustee

Case 23-31037-swe7 Doc 19 Filed 07/10/23 Entered 07/10/23 16:17:49 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
TRUSTEE’S NOTICE OF CONTINUED § 341 MEETING (467363) PAGE 2 OF 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been mailed via U.S. 

First Class Mail and/or Electronic Mail to the parties set forth on the attached Service List on 

this, the 10th day of July, 2023.

/s/ Jerry C. Alexander

Jerry C. Alexander

Case 23-31037-swe7 Doc 19 Filed 07/10/23 Entered 07/10/23 16:17:49 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
B.L.V. v. K.H. and J.H.

2160525

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
AMERICAN TRANSPORT, INC. v. Franklyn JENKINS

2160088

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 11-2 Filed 03/30/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 17
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 11-2 Filed 03/30/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 18