alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of China Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30th, 2008 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Julianna Lu, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
        Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.
 
 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 the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  November
        10th, 2008
 
 /s/*Julianna
                  Lu*Julianna
                  Lu
                Chief
                  Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-7942

BERNARD DONNELL SHERRILL, a/k/a

Nard,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.

(CR-95-5, CA-98-444-3)

Submitted: March 28, 2002

Decided: April 24, 2002

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Bernard Donnell Sherrill, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Bernard Donnell Sherrill appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. The district court entered

the order on June 8, 2001. On September 4, 2001, Sherrill filed a

notice of appeal and motion for an extension of time to file the notice

of appeal due to excusable neglect, which the district court entered on

September 11, 2001. The district court forwarded the notice of appeal

without making a determination on the motion for an extension of

time. 

Parties in a civil action where the United States is a party have

sixty days following a final order in which to file a notice of appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The district court may grant an extension

of this time up to thirty days upon a showing of good cause or excusable neglect. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d

351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). If the defendant files his notice of appeal

outside the applicable appeal period, but within the thirty-day extension period, the district court must make factual findings concerning

whether there was excusable neglect that warrants an extension of the

appeal period. Reyes, 759 F.2d at 353-54. 

Sherrill filed his notice of appeal eighty-seven days after the district court entered its judgment. While this filing was after the sixtyday limit, it was within the thirty-day extension period applicable

upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Because the district court made no factual findings on this issue, we remand the case

to the district court with instructions to make factual findings concerning whether there was excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the sixty-day appeal period. We defer ruling on

Sherrill’s motion for permission to file an oversized brief and grant

his motion to seal the presentence report. We dispense with oral argu2 UNITED STATES v. SHERRILL
ment, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

UNITED STATES v. SHERRILL 3
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 24, 2014

No. 04-14-00577-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.C., A.C., JE.J.C., Children,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-02118

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The State’s brief 

is due on November 24, 2014.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 24th day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Ernst JUILLET, Appellant, v. Naketrease L. MACKEY, Appellee.

No. 4D19-65

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 8, 2019]

Melanie A. Malave, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No brief filed on behalf of appellee., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* . *See**Moriarty v. Moriarty* , 192 So.3d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Gerber, C.J., Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JAIME MEDINA )

)

V. ) 3-05-CV-1469-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice )

Correctional Institutions Division )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr., made findings, conclusions

and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court

accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this 19 day of June 2006. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01469-P Document 17 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 66
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JAIME MEDINA )

)

V. ) 3-05-CV-1469-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice )

Correctional Institutions Division )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr., made findings, conclusions

and a recommendation in this case. Plaintiff filed objections, and the District Court has made a

de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which

objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the Court accepts the Findings,

Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this ____ day of _________, 2006.

 

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01469-P Document 17 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 67
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 16 (Monday, January 27, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01813]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 30, 2025.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

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 23, 2025.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-01813 Filed 1-23-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Home Federal Bancorp, Inc. of
Louisiana (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of Daniel R. Herndon, President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Clyde D. Patterson, Executive Vice President (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 results of operations of the Company.




                                         /s/ Daniel R. Herndon
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Daniel R. Herndon
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         May 16, 2005



                                         /s/ Clyde D. Patterson
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Clyde D. Patterson
                                         Executive Vice President
                                         (principal financial officer)
                                         May 16, 2005


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Home Federal Bancorp, Inc. of Louisiana
and will be retained by Home Federal Bancorp, Inc. of Louisiana and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2017277EN.01002601.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/26

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 30 May 2017 — Eugen Bogatu v Minister for Social Protection

(Case C-322/17)

(2017/C 277/37)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eugen Bogatu

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister for Social Protection

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU Regulation No. 883/2004 (1), and in particular Article 67 thereof, when read in conjunction with article 11(2) thereof require that, in order to be eligible for ‘family benefit’ as defined in article 1(z) of the Regulation, a person must either be employed or self-employed in the competent Member State (as defined in article l(s) of the Regulation or alternatively be in receipt of the cash benefits referred to in Article 11(2) of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU Regulation No. 883/2004 (1), and in particular Article 67 thereof, when read in conjunction with article 11(2) thereof require that, in order to be eligible for ‘family benefit’ as defined in article 1(z) of the Regulation, a person must either be employed or self-employed in the competent Member State (as defined in article l(s) of the Regulation or alternatively be in receipt of the cash benefits referred to in Article 11(2) of the Regulation?

1

| 2. | Is the reference to ‘cash benefits’ in article 11(2) of the regulation to be interpreted as referring only to a period during which a claimant is in actual receipt of cash benefits, or does it mean any period during which a claimant is covered for a cash a benefit in the future, whether or not that benefit has been claimed at the time of application for family benefit? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the reference to ‘cash benefits’ in article 11(2) of the regulation to be interpreted as referring only to a period during which a claimant is in actual receipt of cash benefits, or does it mean any period during which a claimant is covered for a cash a benefit in the future, whether or not that benefit has been claimed at the time of application for family benefit?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004, L 166, p. 1).

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Mark J. Rosenblum, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of HemoBioTech, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 period covered 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 and maintaining 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
material  information  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) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition  instructions  contained
in SEC Release 34-47986]

c) Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and 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

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial  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, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying  officer(s) and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the  registrant's  board of directors (or persons  performing  the equivalent
functions):

a) All significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial  data and have  identified for the such auditors
any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) Any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

     DATE: MAY 15, 2006             /s/ MARK J. ROSENBLUM
                                    MARK J. ROSENBLUM
                                    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                    (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-K
  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.  By: /s/  Bruce
    A. WalicekBruce
    A. WalicekPresident and Chief Executive
    OfficerDate: March 16, 2009
"Matters of custody and support of minor children rest in the 

[district court's] sound discretion," Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 

1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996); thus, this Court reviews a district court's 

decision regarding child support for an abuse of discretion. Rivero v. 

Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 438, 216 P.3d 213, 232 (2009). A district court 

abuses its discretion when it acts in "clear disregard of the guiding legal 

principles." Bergmann v. Boyce, 109 Nev. 670, 674, 856 P.2d 560, 563 

(1993). 

NRS 125B.070 provides a statutory formula for determining a 

child support obligation. This court has determined a district court abuses 

its discretion regarding child support awards or modifications when the 

district court does not make specific findings of fact regarding any 

deviation from the NRS 125B.070 statutory support formula. Rivero, 125 

Nev. at 438, 216 P.3d at 232 (citing Jackson v. Jackson, 111 Nev. 1551, 

1553, 907 P.2d 990, 992 (1995)); see also NRS 125B.080(6); NRS 125B.145. 

Here, the district court abused its discretion because it did not 

make specific findings of fact to support modifying Collinsworth's child 

support obligation. Based on the statutory formula (18 percent of his 

gross monthly income to support a child), Collinsworth was required to 

pay $535 per month in child support. NRS 125B.070(1)(a)-(b)(1). The 

district court issued an order reducing Collinsworth's monthly payments 

to $100, but did not make specific factual findings to support the deviation 

from the statutory formula. Accordingly, we 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

------ , : ccetIM , 

Douglas 

Gibbons 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Kenneth E. Pollock, District Judge 

Pecos Law Group 

Joseph W. Houston, II 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
EXHIBIT 10.14

                                    AGREEMENT

         THIS AGREEMENT, made as of this day of December 1999, (the "Agreement")
between Kadampanattu Corp. (hereinafter referred to as "K Corp.") and Trailer
Bridge, Inc., ("hereinafter referred to as "Trailer Bridge").

         WHEREAS, in August, 1999 K Corp. and Trailer Bridge entered into an
agreement regarding the reimbursement by K Corp. of approximately $3.7 million
in additional expenses incurred by Trailer Bridge as a result of the failure of
the loading ramp system provided by K Corp.; and

         WHEREAS, the parties sought to accomplish this reimbursement through
the assignment of insurance proceeds related to the loading ramp structure
formerly used in Jacksonville, Florida; and

         WHEREAS, payment under that insurance policy has been delayed;

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
to be kept and performed on the part of said parties hereto, respectively as
herein stated, hereby agree as follows:

         1.   K Corp. agrees to fully pay the reimbursement of expenses agreed
              to in August, 1999 directly to Trailer Bridge prior to March 30,
              2000.

         2.   Upon such full payment Trailer Bridge agrees to rescind or return
              the assignment of the insurance policy related to the ramp
              formerly used in Jacksonville and waive for the benefit of K
              Corp., any amounts due under such policy.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, K Corp. and Trailer Bridge have caused this
Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above written.


                               KADAMPANATTU CORP.


                                 /s/ John D. McCown
                               ------------------------------------------------
                               By:     John D. McCown
                               Title:  President


                               TRAILER BRIDGE, INC.


                                 /s/ John D. McCown
                               ------------------------------------------------
                               By:     John D. McCown
                               Title:  Chairman of the Board and CEO
Case 3:05-cv-02469-G Document 40 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 785
Case 3:05-cv-02469-G Document 40 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 786
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20493 Summary Calendar

JOSEPH CALAIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(97-CV-3499)

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph Calais appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security. Calais contends that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
did not properly apply Social Security Ruling 83-20 in determining
the onset date of his disability. He states that, because his injury stemmed from a traumatic event, the onset date should have
been the date of his injury. Even if considered a disability of
non-traumatic origin, Calais contends that the ALJ should have
determined whether the alleged onset date was consistent with Calais’s testimony, work history, and medical evidence.2

We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the parties and find that the ALJ’s decision was supp orted by

s ubstantial evidence and the proper legal standards were used in evaluating the evidence. Brock v. Chater , 84 F.3d 726, 727-28 (5th
Cir. 1996). The district court correctly determined that no genuine issue of material fact exists.

AFFIRMED.