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

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>




                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Navidec Financial Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, John R.
McKowen, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and Director of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18 USC  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: August 14, 2007


/s/John R. McKowen
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John R. McKowen, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman
and Director


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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 amended Quarterly Report of Valley High Mining Company
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, John Michael Coombs, 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.



Dated: January 23, 2006                   /s/ John Michael Coombs
                                          -------------------------------
                                          John Michael Coombs,
                                          CEO, President, CFO, and Chairman of
                                          the Board
**Exhibit 32.2**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007as filed by Las Vegas Sands Corp. with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Las Vegas Sands Corp.        Date:  November 9, 2007 By:  /s/ Robert P. Rozek    Robert P. Rozek    Chief Financial Officer
# C_2017424EN.01001902.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/19

---

Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-183/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-525/17 P)

(2017/C 424/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-183/16, EU:T:2017:449; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-183/16, EU:T:2017:449;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

| — | reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 28, 2025)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Pages 8233-8234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01899]



                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 28, 2025 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 8233]]

                Proclamation 10885 of January 20, 2025

                
Flying the Flag of the United States at Full-
                Staff on Inauguration Day

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and 
                the laws of the United States of America, and in honor 
                of Inauguration Day and everything good and noble that 
                it represents about our Nation, our people, and our 
                form of Government, I hereby order that, on this and 
                all future Inauguration Days, the flag of the United 
                States shall be flown at full-staff.

                Accordingly, I hereby order that the flag of the United 
                States shall be flown at full-staff at the White House 
                and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all 
                military posts and naval stations, and on all naval 
                vessels of the Federal Government, in the District of 
                Columbia and throughout the United States and its 
                Territories and possessions, for the remainder of this 
                day beginning immediately.

                I also direct that, for the same period of time, the 
                flag shall be flown at full-staff at all United States 
                embassies, legations, consular offices, and other 
                facilities abroad, including all military facilities 
                and naval vessels and stations.

                Upon the end of this Inauguration Day, I hereby order 
                that the flag of the United States shall be returned to 
                half-staff as directed by Proclamation 10876 of 
                December 29, 2024 (Announcing the Death of James Earl 
                Carter, Jr.), in recognition of the memory of our 
                former President, until the period of 30 days from the 
                day of his death has concluded.

[[Page 8234]]

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                twentieth 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.
                
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. 2025-01899
Filed 1-27-25; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3395-F4-P
```
Exhibit 32.2



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 GlobalSantaFe Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, W. Matt Ralls, Chief 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 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ W. Matt Ralls

---

W. Matt Ralls

Chief Financial Officer

March 1, 2005
D.O., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2110

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS:

90 FR 7202, January 21, 2025, and 90 FR 7720, January 22, 2025.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 1 p.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 1 p.m., has been changed to Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 12:30 p.m.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: January 22, 2025.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2025-01784 Filed 1-23-25; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Preston D. CROSKEY, DOC #H20918, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2497

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 3, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 19 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 19

  Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to 
  Israel of certain defense articles, including defense services and 
                            technical data.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2021

 Mr. Sanders introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed transfer to 
  Israel of certain defense articles, including defense services and 
                            technical data.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the issuance of a license 
for the export with respect to any of the following transfers to Israel 
is prohibited:
            (1) The transfer of the following defense articles, 
        including defense services and technical data, described in 
        license document DDTC 20-084, submitted to Congress pursuant to 
        section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
        2776(c)) on May 5, 2021: The proposed transfer of defense 
        articles, defense services, and technical data to support 
        weapons integration, flight test, and hardware delivery of 
        Joint Direct Attack Munition variants and Small Diameter Bomb 
        Increment I variants for end-use by the Ministry of Defense for 
        Israel.
                                 <all>
```
JUPITER HOUSE, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HMC ASSETS, LLC, Trustee of CAM XVIII, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.:2D18-1834

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
M.A.M.J. v. M.P.W.

2161060

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 7, 2017

Dismissed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00603-CR

Robert Joseph Yezak, Appellant

v.

State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

NO. FR78644, THE HONORABLE JOHN T. GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Robert Joseph Yezak has filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging various 

actions allegedly made by the trial court. Generally, an appellate court only has jurisdiction 

to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant where there has been a final judgment of 

conviction. See Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961); Curiel v. State, 

No. 13-21-00400-CR, 2022 WL 1412320, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg May 5, 

2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). That general rule is subject to some 

exceptions, including some appeals where a defendant is on deferred adjudication community 

supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); appeals from the denial 

of a motion to reduce bond, Tex. R. App. P. 31.1; and some appeals related to the denial of a 

claim for habeas corpus relief, id.; Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

1998, no pet.).
2

Our review of the clerk’s record reveals that no final judgment of conviction or 

other appealable order has been entered in this case, and the trial court has certified that “no 

action has occurred upon which an appeal may be predicated.” Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d) (explaining that if trial court 

does not certify that defendant has right to appeal, “appeal must be dismissed”).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: October 21, 2022

Do Not Publish
Randall L. WRIGHT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0876

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
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 24, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. 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 13, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract                               ( print page 8165)                            1298 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1123, K2025-1122.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-01640 Filed 1-23-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Case 3:06-cv-00236-N Document 24 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 151
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 132 Filed 03/23/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 2547
Case 3:03-cv-00418-N Document 132 Filed 03/23/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2548
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk May 18, 2011

t0511 

# Order

May 18, 2011

140679

LAURENCE G. WOLF, d/b/a

LAURENCE WOLF PROPERTIES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 140679

COA: 279853

CITY OF DETROIT,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral

arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we VACATE the January

21, 2010 opinion and order of the Court of Appeals. At this time, a material question of

fact exists concerning the direct and indirect costs of the services for which the solid

waste inspection fee is charged. Such a finding is necessary to determine whether the

City of Detroit’s solid waste inspection fee is proportionate to the necessary costs of the

inspection service, and may also impact whether the fee serves a revenue

- raising or a

regulatory purpose. See Bolt v City of Lansing , 459 Mich 152, 161

- 162 (1998).

Accordingly, summary disposition in favor of the defendant was improper. We therefore

REMAND this case to the Court of Appe als. Because substantial fact

- finding may be

necessary, the Court of Appeals should consider a further remand to the circuit court for

this purpose. See MCL 600.308a(5).

M ARILYN K ELLY , J. ( concurring in part, dissenting in part ).

I concur in the Court’s order vacating the January 21, 2010 opinion and order of

the Court of Appeals. However, I dissent from the Court’s decision to remand this case

to the Court of Appeals. I would instead remand the case to the Wayne Circuit Court for

further findings of fact because trial courts are better equipped to make such findings. I

would also retain jurisdiction over the case so that the Supreme Court can rule on its

merits once the trial court makes its findings of fact.
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                   |                                   |                                        |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                              |                              |                                   |
| Dated:                October 12, 2007 | By:                          | /s/                Lu                Pingji |
|                                   | Lu              Pingji                 |
|                                   | Chief                Executive Officer |

----
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC

NO. 2019-CC-0528

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

Stay recalled. Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant and remand for evidentiary hearing.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and remand for evidentiary hearing.

GENOVESE, J., would grant and remand for evidentiary hearing.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10614

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO ARMANDO RUBIO-NAVARRO,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CR-010-01

- - - - - - - - - -

March 1, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Roberto Armando Rubio-Navarro

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and we have independently reviewed counsel's brief,

the points raised by Rubio-Navarro in response to that brief, and

the record, and found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED.