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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Annual Report of XsunX,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.



Date:     January 16, 2012



|/s/  Tom Djokovich                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name: Tom Djokovich                                                                                
|Title: President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer, and Director



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in
typed form within the electronic version 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 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2018104EN.01001601.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2017 — Mohammed Bilali

(Case C-720/17)

(2018/C 104/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Mohammed Bilali

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent authority: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Respondent authority:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the provisions of EU law, in particular Article 19(3) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 (1) (the Qualification Directive), preclude a national provision of a Member State concerning the possibility of revocation of subsidiary protection status pursuant to which subsidiary protection status may be revoked without a change in the factual circumstances themselves which are relevant for the purpose of granting that status, but rather only where the state of knowledge of the authority in this regard has undergone a change, and, in that context, without either a misrepresentation or an omission of facts on the part of the third-country national or stateless person having been a determinant factor in the granting of the subsidiary protection status?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

1

---
Donte Lamar ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2751

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 26, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Allison A. Havens, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Donte Rogers appeals the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after the trial court found he violated his probation in case numbers 04-CF-010445 and 04-CF-013416. We affirm but remand solely for entry of a proper order revoking probation. *See* *Mitchell v. State*, 263 So.3d 252, 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (remanding for entry of proper written order revoking probation); *see also* *Green v. State*, 23 So.3d 820, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (remanding for entry of written order revoking probation where record clearly showed trial court had revoked appellant's probation); *Dolinger v. State*, 779 So.2d 419, 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (determining trial court erred by failing to enter written revocation order and remanding for entry of said order).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for entry of revocation order.

EISNAUGLE, HARRIS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Case 3:05-cv-01550-M Document 11 Filed 12/28/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 43
Case 3:05-cv-00984-B Document 5 Filed 07/08/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 18
Case 3:05-cv-01040-D Document 5 Filed 12/16/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID 33
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01040-D Document 5 Filed 12/16/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID 34
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01040-D Document 5 Filed 12/16/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID 35
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3985-3986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00759]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Small Business Investment Company License Issuance

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) licenses.

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

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under section 301(c) of the Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958, as amended, to grant Small Business Investment 
Company licenses under the Small Business Investment Company Program, 
this notice satisfies the requirement effective August 17, 2023 under 
13 CFR 107.501(a) to publish in the Federal Register the names of SBICs 
with date of licensure and Total Intended Leverage Commitments. The 
following SBICs received SBIC licenses as of the date indicated below:

[[Page 3986]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Leverage tiers
          SBIC fund name            Date of licensure         \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC Small Business Fund, L.P......          12/31/2024              1.00x
Ridgeline Ventures Fund II-S, L.P          12/27/2024              1.25x
Midwest Growth Partners IV, L.P..          12/27/2024              1.50x
BBK Ventures Fund I, L.P.........          12/27/2024              2.00x
Strategic Equality Fund II, L.P..          12/20/2024              2.00x
GP Capital Partners II, L.P......          12/19/2024              2.00x
Escalate Capital V, L.P..........           12/9/2024              2.00x
Charter Growth Capital Fund II,             12/6/2024              1.00x
 L.P.............................
Rochefort Ventures, L.P..........           12/6/2024              2.00x
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum amount of Leverage expressed as a multiple of Leverageable
  Capital pursuant to 13 CFR 107.1150. For all SBIC Licensees that
  submitted a Management Assessment Questionnaire after August 17, 2023,
  the Notice of SBIC Licenses will include the Total Intended Leverage
  Commitment at the time of Licensure.

Bailey DeVries,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. 
Small Business Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-00759 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

JOSEPH W. CHAVIS §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:05cv412

ROBERT WALKER, ET AL. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING TRANSFER

Plaintiff Joseph W. Chavis, an inmate previously confined at the Allred Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees of the Allred Unit.

Discussion

The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq., under which this case is brought, does not

contain a specific venue provision. Accordingly, venue in civil rights cases is controlled by 28

U.S.C. § 1391. Jones v. Bailey, 58 F.R.D. 453 (N.D. Ga. 1972); aff’d per curiam, 480 F.2d 805 (5th

Cir. 1973).

When, as in this case, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391 provides that venue is proper only in the judicial district where the defendants reside or in

which the claim arose. However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for the convenience of parties and

witnesses and in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other

district or division where it could have been brought. Such a transfer may be done sua sponte and

is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion. Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th

Cir. 1989).

Case 1:05-cv-00412-MAC-ESH Document 2 Filed 06/27/2005 Page 1 of 2
 

 Case 7:05-cv-00151-R Document 2 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 6
2

Plaintiff complains of incidents which occurred at the Allred Unit. The Allred Unit is located

in the Wichita Falls Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The court has considered the circumstances and has determined that the interest of justice would best

be served if the complaint were transferred to the district in which the claims arose and where the

defendants reside. Therefore, the case should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas. An

order so providing will be entered by the undersigned.

SIGNED this day of , 2005.

 

 EARL S. HINES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00412-MAC-ESH Document 2 Filed 06/27/2005 Page 2 of 2
 

 Case 7:05-cv-00151-R Document 2 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 7
Ernest Franklin PLATT v. STATE

CR-16-0950

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017

Affirmed.
Exhibit 13.1 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 MAX Resource Corp. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stuart Rogers, Principal Executive and I, Christopher Cherry, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   / s / Stuart RogersStuart Rogers, Principal Executive Officer April 21, 2009   / s / Christopher CherryChristopher Cherry, Principal Financial Officer April  21, 2009
Kendra T. ELLIS, Appellant, v. Rasheed Karim ALLEN, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1369

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 22, 2019

Tarya A. Tribble, of Tribble Law Center, P.A., Riverview, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*1270We affirm the judgment in its entirety. However, we remand with instructions to the trial court to allocate responsibility for the payment of the child's noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses as required by section 61.30(8), Florida Statutes (2015).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

EVANDER, C.J., WALLIS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41378

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HERIBERTO MENDEZ-ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1168-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Heriberto MendezAlvarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mendez-Alvarez has not filed a response. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue

for appellate review. 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

December 11, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-41378 Document: 00512467671 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2013
Wendall HALL, DOC #379682, Petitioner, v. Ms. REYNOLDS, Mental Health Counselor; and Captain Bush, Respondents.

Case No. 2D18-2948

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 10, 2019

Wendall Hall, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent Captain Bush.

No appearance for remaining Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as it relates to the portion of the order setting aside the clerk's default and denying Mr. Hall's motion for default judgment. *See**Dawkins, Inc. v. Huff*, 836 So.2d 1062, 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("[W]e must dismiss this appeal. An order on a motion to set aside a clerk's default is not an appealable, non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). Absent extraordinary circumstances, such an order is also not reviewable by certiorari, as certiorari should not be used to circumvent the appellate rule which limits interlocutory review of non-final orders." (citation and footnote omitted) ); *Rodriguez v. Young Am. Corp.*, 717 So.2d 621, 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ("Because the appellants seek review of an order setting aside the entry of a default as opposed to a default judgment, we *sua sponte* dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction."). Having carefully reviewed the record as to Mr. Hall's remaining arguments, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari as the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law.

Dismissed in part; denied in part.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
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 10, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 595 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1103, K2025-1102.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00925 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Case 3:05-cv-01018-H Document 1 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1
A99A1910.

#### BARBER v. THE STATE.

(522 SE2d 238)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Defendant pleaded guilty, but mentally ill, to a single count of child molestation and four counts of aggravated child molestation and was sentenced to ten years to serve running concurrently as to each count and “with any sentence now serving.” Approximately seven months later, defendant filed a petition to correct void judgment, arguing that his sentence to ten years confinement was void in that the trial court erred in accepting his pleas of guilty but mentally ill allegedly in violation of OCGA § 17-7-131 (b) (2). The trial court denied his petition, and defendant, pro se, appeals, renewing the *57argument he made below.

Decided August 31, 1999

Reconsideration denied September 15, 1999

William L. Barber, *pro se.*

*John C. Pridgen, District Attorney,*for appellee.

> A trial court has no jurisdiction to modify a sentence after the term of court ends or 60 days pass. *Heard v. Gill,*204 Ga. 261 (49 SE2d 656) (1948); OCGA § 17-10-1. Where a sentence is void, however, the court may resentence the defendant at any time. *Mullins v. State,*134 Ga. App. 243 (214 SE2d 1) (1975). A sentence is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow. See, e.g., *Wade v. State,*231 Ga. 131, 134-135 (200 SE2d 271) (1973) (holding sentences invalid because they did not follow the jury’s verdict and sentence).

*Crumbley v. State,*261 Ga. 610, 611 (1) (409 SE2d 517).

In the case sub judice, the trial court was authorized by OCGA § 17-7-131 (g) (1) to impose concurrent ten-year sentences to serve after the defendant entered his guilty pleas to child molestation and aggravated child molestation. OCGA § 16-6-4 (b) and (d) (1), respectively. Therefore, the judgment is not void, and the trial court properly denied defendant’s petition to correct void judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Johnson, C. J., and Phipps, J., concur.*
Case 3:05-cv-01760-H Document 24 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 112
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Respondent/Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:03-CR-0280-D 

) No. 3:05-CV-0667-D

CECIL LUMONT BRADFORD, ) 

ID # 31163-177, )

Movant/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 defendant’s objections, 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 adopted as the findings and

conclusions of the court.

SIGNED September 11, 2007.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief 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 Quarterly Report of On4 Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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; 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:  September 18, 2009





By:       /s/ Penny Green


Penny Green


President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00580]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[OMB Control No. 2900-0016]

Agency Information Collection Activity: Claim for Disability 
Insurance Benefits, Government Life Insurance; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: On Tuesday, January 7, 2025 the Veterans Benefits 
Administration (VBA), published a notice in the Federal Register 
announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection 
Claim for Disability Insurance Benefits, Government Life Insurance, VA 
Form 29-357. This notice was published in error; therefore, this 
document corrects that error by withdrawing this FR notice.

DATES: As of January 7, 2025, the FR notice published at 90 FR 1222 on 
Tuesday, January 7, 2025, is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maribel Aponte, 202-461-8900, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FR Doc. 2025-00015, published on January 7, 
2025 (90 FR 1222), is withdrawn by this notice.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Maribel Aponte,
VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of Enterprise and Integration/Data 
Governance Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2025-00580 Filed 1-13-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SHANE C. SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 385 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of December, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is GRANTED . The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Can a person be convicted of possession of a firearm with altered manufacturer’s number under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6110.2
where the evidence clearly shows that the registration number at issue is fully legible and identifiable despite some scratch

marks?
Daniel C. YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3760

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 24, 2019

Daniel C. Young, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Rowe, and Makar, JJ., concur.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 4, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1483 Lower Tribunal No. 90-28455

________________ 

### Richard Paul Knight, Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Altfield, Judge. Richard Paul Knight, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.