alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 this Quarterly Report of Tintic Gold Mining Company (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, George P. Christopulos, CEO, President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Chairman of the Board of the Registrant, 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 the best of my knowledge and belief: (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:May 11, 2007By:/s/George P. ChristopulosGeorge P. ChristopulosCEO, President, CFO and Chairman of the Board
# C_2022340EN.01003201.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — OC v EEAS

(Case T-681/20) (1)

(Liability - Civil service - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Reporting of irregularities - Inspection report - Transfer - Acts adversely affecting an official - Conduct not entailing a decision - Compliance with the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Protection of whistleblowers - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Duty of care - Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right to privacy - Protection of personal data)

(2022/C 340/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OC (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage that she allegedly suffered as a result of acts or conduct of the European External Action Service (EEAS).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 to OC for the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the sum of EUR 10 000 to OC for the non-material damage suffered;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the EEAS to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by OC. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EEAS to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by OC.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---
Exhibit 32.1.(1)

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

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Systems Management
Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

      To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  April 14, 2005


              BY:    /s/ Jim Karlak
                 -------------------------------------------
                     JIM KARLAK
                     PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
EX PARTE Maurice N. CAVER

1161040 (CR-16-0608)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Uralle PRICE

No. 2018-KP-1731

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE THIRTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. BERNARD**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant 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.

Applicant has now fully litigated at least two applications 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. Applicant'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 *693applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
EX PARTE Ollie Gabriel LANIER

1160902 (CR-16-0442)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 90 

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to repeal the authority 

of the President to assume emergency control of the police of the District 

of Columbia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 28, 2021 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. CARPER, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. KAINE, Mr. CASEY, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, and Mr. 

WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to repeal 

the authority of the President to assume emergency control of the police of the District of Columbia. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Police Home Rule Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 90 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT TO ASSUME 

2 EMERGENCY CONTROL OF POLICE OF DIS3 TRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

4 (a) REPEAL OF AUTHORITY.—The District of Colum5 bia Home Rule Act is amended by striking section 740 

6 (sec. 1–207.40, D.C. Official Code). 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

8 of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to 

9 section 740. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350, 

created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 

 

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 June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities 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 andfor the periods indicated. 

 

Dated: January 26, 2006 

 

 

The foregoing certification isbeing 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 ofthe 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 provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE of Louisiana v. Treyson THEDY

No. 2018-KH-1007

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Applicant has now fully litigated his 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 *1109period 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. Applicant'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, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Hughes, J., would grant the writ in part.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0 555 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHANDA LEANN KIRKLAND ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 15 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 8 2020

06/08/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0555
Walter Jason DEWRELL v. STATE

CR-16-0878

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134840 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 134840 COA: 269605 Wayne CC: 04-005425-01 KEENAN LEE ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 19, 2007 judgment of the Court of App eals is considered and, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the July 17, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals denying the motion to file a supplemental brief, and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for plenary consideration of the issue raised in the defendant’s supplemental brief: whether the trial court’s upward departure from th e applicable sentencing guid elines range, and extent of departure, were supported by subs tantial and compelling reasons. People v Babcock , 469 Mich 247 (2003). The Court of Appeals shall issue an or der permitting the prosecutor to respond. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED , because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

W EAVER J., would deny leave to appeal.

Y OUNG , J., dissents and states as follows:

I respectfully dissent from this Court’s or der reversing the ord er of the Court of Appeals denying defendant’s mo tion to file a supplemental brief and remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for plenary consid eration of the issue rai sed in defendant’s supplemental brief. A party may not file a supplemental brief in the Court of Appeals except “by leave of th e Court.” MCR 7.212(G). With the assistance of counsel, defendant filed his initial brief on September 5, 2006. Upon defe ndant’s request, his counsel filed in the trial cour t a motion to withdraw, which was granted on February 15,_______________________________________ __ 2

2007. Substitute counsel was appointed on April 19, 2007. On July 9, 2007, the day before this case was submitted on the case ca ll, substitute counsel moved to file a supplemental brief. On July 17, 2007, the Court of App eals denied defendant’s motion and returned the supplemental brief. I disa gree with the majority that the Court of Appeals abused its discreti on by denying defendant’s 11 th hour motion to add issues to his appeal. Therefore, I would deny his applica tion and require him to raise these issues in a motion for reli ef from judgment.

C ORRIGAN
, J., joins the statement of Y OUNG
, J.

p1120 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 27, 2007

Clerk
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.                  

###### Legal Services Corporation

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Jessica Wechter, Special Assistant to the President, at (202) 295-1626. Questions may also be sent by electronic mail to                         *wechterj@lsc.gov.*

*Non-Confidential Meeting Materials:*                         Non-confidential meeting materials will be made available in electronic format at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the LSC website, at                         *https://www.lsc.gov/​about-lsc/​board-meeting-materials.*

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

Dated: January 14, 2025.

Stefanie Davis,

Deputy General Counsel,Legal Services Corporation.

# Footnotes

1.                             5 U.S.C. 552b(a)(2) and (b). See also 45 CFR 1622.2 & 1622.3.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2025-01348 Filed 1-15-25; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
# C_2016296EN.01003201.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/32

---

Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello media group)

(Case T-331/16)

(2016/C 296/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hello Media, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hola, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘#hello media group’ — Application for registration No 12 441 317

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21/04/2016 in Case R 2012/2015-2

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;

| — | reject opposition B 2 336 371 to the application for a European Union trade mark No 12 441 317; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject opposition B 2 336 371 to the application for a European Union trade mark No 12 441 317;

| — | order the grant of European Union trade mark No 12 441 317 ‘#hello media group’ (with graphic); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the grant of European Union trade mark No 12 441 317 ‘#hello media group’ (with graphic);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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.

---
Carlos J. CERVANTES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0338

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2


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


     I, Elena Pochapski, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Siberian Energy  Group Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly period
ended  March  31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Form  10-QSB/A fairly presents  in  all  material  respects  the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Siberian  Energy  Group  Inc.


                                     By:/s/ Elena Pochapski
                                     --------------------------
                                     Elena Pochapski
                                     Principal Financial Officer
May 19, 2006

<PAGE>
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 16, 2025.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean 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 January 8, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 591 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1086, K2025-1085.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00921 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mutteb**~tate~** 

# Qtourtof**~peal~** 

# for tbejfeberal Qttrcutt
SCHOLLE CUSTOM PACKAGING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. GRAYLING INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2013-1005 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan in case no. 03-CV-0093, ChiefJudge Paul L. Maloney. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER The partiesjointly move to dismiss this appeal. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. Case: 13-1005 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 12/19/2012SCHOLLE CUSTOM PACKAGING V. GRAYLING INDUSTRIES 2 FOR THE COURT /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 

### s21 Issued As A Mandate: 

### _....::..DE_C_1_9_2_01_2

__ Case: 13-1005 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 12/19/2012
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 27, 2017

No. 04-17-00371-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DONNA JEAN HAMMOND, AN 

INCAPACITATED PERSON,

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 9,688

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s brief has been filed. Although only substantial compliance with Rule 38 

is required, we may order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates 

Rule 38. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). The court has determined that the following briefing 

defects described constitute flagrant violations of Rule 38.1: 

-the brief does not identify the parties and counsel, Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(a); 

-the brief does not contain a table of contents, Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(b); 

-the brief does not contain an index of authorities, Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(c);

-neither the statement of the case nor the statement of facts is supported by references to 

the record, Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d), (f);

-the brief does not state concisely all issues or points presented for review, Tex. R. App. 

P. 38.1(f)

-the brief does not contain a summary of the argument, Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h);

-the brief does not include a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, Tex. R. 

App. P. 38.1(i); 

-the argument does not contain appropriate citations to authorities and to the record, Tex. 

R. App. P. 38.1(i);

-the brief does not include an appendix containing the items specified in Rule 38.1(k), 

Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(k); and

-the brief does not contain a certificate of service, as required by Rule 9.5, 

acknowledging that appellant served a copy of the document on all parties to the 

proceeding. Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(a),(d),(e).

We order appellant to file an amended brief by November 13, 2017. If a timely amended 

brief that corrects these deficiencies is not filed, we may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from 

filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). 
This may include dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. Id. R. 38.8(a)(1); Elizondo v. 

City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 27th day of October, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court