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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HouseValues, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), Ian Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company and Jacqueline Davidson, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result
of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 2, 2006



/s/ IAN MORRISIan Morris Chief Executive Officer/s/ JACQUELINE DAVIDSONJacqueline Davidson Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance


This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification
will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; R13 Conference Grant 
Applications.
    Date: February 27, 2025.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institutes of Health, NIDDK Democracy II, 
Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Jian Yang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney, National 
Institute of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Rm. 7011, Bethesda, 
MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-7799,[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 10, 2025.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-00850 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, W. Donald Brunson, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Coastal Bancshares Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

 

|   | • |   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed 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 |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

 

Date: February 2, 2006

 

|                                                                                                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ W. Donald Brunson

W. Donald Brunson

Co-Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |
STATE of Louisiana v. Rickey OVERSTREET

NO. 2019-KO-0235

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41047

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KENNETH DEAN MAYES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-265-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

TheFederalPublic Defender appointed to represent Kenneth Dean Mayes

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mayes has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5176

REYNAULT CHEVALIER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in

08-CV-511, Judge Francis M. Allegra.

ON MOTION

Before MOORE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Reynault Chevalier moves to stay the briefing schedule pending his release from

prison.

Chevalier contends that continuing the briefing schedule and requiring him to pay

the court's docketing fee while he is in prison would constitute an unnecessary

hardship. As the court has explained on three recent prior occasions, under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b), Chevalier is not obligated to pay the entire docketing fee in one payment

before continuing his appeal and is only required to pay the fee when funds exist in his

prisoner account. Chevalier may withdraw his appeal if he does not wish to continue in

compliance with the requirements.
On January 23, 2009, the court gave Chevalier 60 days to file his brief or have

his appeal dismissed. The court will not entertain any more motions for extension of

time from Chevalier or letters regarding this issue.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is denied. Chevalier's brief is due within 30 days of the date of filing

of this order. No further extensions.

FOR THE COURT

MAR 18 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

Ua 4UUltrgrPPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

MAR 1 8 2009

thiv

CLERK

Date

cc:	Reynault Chevalier

Elizabeth Speck, Esq.

s19

2008-5176	 2
STATE of Louisiana v. Samuel DESILVA

NO. 2019-KH-0198

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Ian Morris, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of HouseValues, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport 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 periodcovered by this report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation 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 report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand 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 report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer 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 the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies 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 financialinformation; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 8, 2005
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 4 0 7 5 7 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s
L U I S A L B E R T O J A S S O

- B O T E L L O , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s N o
. 5 : 0 6

- C R

- 5 7 9

- 1

B e f o r e D A V I S , S M I T H , a n d S O U T H W I C K , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *

T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t L u i s J a s s o - B o t e l l o h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 1 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-40757 Document: 00511222341 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2010N o
. 0 9

- 4 0 7 5 7

3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. J a s s o - B o t e l l o h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t

r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. C o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w b e c a u s e o f h i s a p p o i n t m e n t a s a U n i t e d S t a t e s M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e i s D E N I E D a s m o o t

.

2 Case: 09-40757 Document: 00511222341 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DEBBIE PRUITT §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-04-CV-0554-D

§

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL §

DISTRICT, ET AL. §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated April 21, 2006, the

Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are

accepted as the Findings and Recommendation of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge are accepted. Defendant Dallas Independent School District’s October 27,

2005 motion for summary judgment is denied.

SO ORDERED.

May 17, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00554-D Document 50 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 462
Rapier Family



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 4, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00105

- CV

Mava HURD and Leonard Izzo, Appellant s

v.

RAPIER FAMILY FOUNDATION

, Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 14969 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellants’ third motion for extension of time to file their brief is GRANTED. Appellants’ brief is due on July 15, 2015

.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Mark William GACHES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Chad CHRONISTER, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0973

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GENE IRVING GARLAND, JR., §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-2658-D

VS. §

 §

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR §

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF §

TEXAS, et al., §

 §

Defendants. §

ORDER

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

report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the report and

recommendation are correct and are therefore adopted.

In adopting the report and recommendation, the court reaches the arguments of defendant

Sheila Powell (“Powell”) that are addressed to the merits of plaintiff’s remaining claim. The court

agrees with the magistrate judge that Powell is entitled to dismissal on the basis that she has not been

properly served. If the court were to rely on that ground alone, however, it might be obligated to

give plaintiff additional time to effect service. For reasons the magistrate judge correctly explains

 

 Case 3:03-cv-02658-D Document 87 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 424
- 2 -

in his report and recommendation, Powell is entitled to dismissal based on limitations and to

summary judgment as to the claim that remains against her. The court therefore dismisses plaintiff’s

action on these grounds as well.

SO ORDERED.

April 3, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:03-cv-02658-D Document 87 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 425
Ronald Mark COCHRAN v. AUTOVEST, LLC

2170069

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 2, 2017

Dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

Exhibit 21

                            Kendle International Inc.
                                 Subsidiary List

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiary                                        Jurisdiction of Organization
----------                                        ----------------------------
<S>                                               <C>
Kendle U.K. Inc.                                  Ohio

Kendle GmbH                                       Germany

Kendle Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH                  Germany

Kendle International B.V.                         The Netherlands

U-Gene Clinical Research B.V.                     The Netherlands

U-Gene Research Biotechnology B.V.                The Netherlands

Kendle International Holdings Limited             United Kingdom

Kendle Branches Limited                           United Kingdom

Kendle International Limited                      United Kingdom

Kendle U.K. Limited                               United Kingdom

Kendle CTA Limited                                United Kingdom

Kendle International SARL                         France

Kendle R&D Pty Limited                            Australia

Kendle R&D Unit Trust                             Australia

ACER/EXCEL INC.                                   New Jersey

AAC Consulting Group, Inc.                        Maryland

Kendle Canada Inc.                                Canada

Kendle International CPU LLC                      Ohio

Kendle International Holdings Pty Limited         Australia

Kendle Pty Limited                                Australia

Kendle Unit Trust                                 Australia

Kendle International, S.A. de C.V.                Mexico

Kendle Servicios, S.A. de C.V.                    Mexico

Kendle India Private Limited                      India

Kendle South Africa (Proprietary) Limted          South Africa
</TABLE>
# C_2017112EN.01002701.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 February 2017 — SCI Château du Grand Bois v Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Case C-59/17)

(2017/C 112/37)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SCI Château du Grand Bois

Applicant:

Defendant: Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 76, 78 and 81 of [Commission] Implementing Regulation [No 555/2008] of 27 June 2008 (1) authorise officials carrying out an on-the-spot check to enter agricultural land without having obtained the farmer’s permission? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 76, 78 and 81 of [Commission] Implementing Regulation [No 555/2008] of 27 June 2008 (1) authorise officials carrying out an on-the-spot check to enter agricultural land without having obtained the farmer’s permission?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: must a distinction be made depending on whether or not the land in question is enclosed? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: must a distinction be made depending on whether or not the land in question is enclosed?

| 3. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: are Articles 76, 78 and 81 of [Commission] Implementing Regulation [No 555/2008] of 27 June 2008 compatible with the principle of the inviolability of the home as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: are Articles 76, 78 and 81 of [Commission] Implementing Regulation [No 555/2008] of 27 June 2008 compatible with the principle of the inviolability of the home as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector (OJ 2008 L 170, p. 1).

1

---
EX PARTE Bobby Gene MILES

1160880 (CR-16-0593)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Motion Granted , Appeal Dismissed , and Memorandum Opinion filed October

10 , 2019
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00527

- CV

CATHERINE SMITH , Appellant

V.
MICHAEL PUENTES AND AMY MARTINEZ , Appellee s
On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 50206

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 5, 2019. On October 3, 2019, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is gr anted , and the appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.