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






Statement
      Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
      undersigned, Daniel Dror, Chairman of Hammonds Industries, Inc, a Nevada
      corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section
      906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of
      this
      report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
      2007.




The
      undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
      information contained in the above annual report fairly presents, in all
      respects, the financial condition of Hammonds Industries, Inc. and results
      of
      its operations.






Date:  November
      19, 2007


Daniel
      Dror


Chairman/s/
      Daniel Dror
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 32 Filed 08/22/01 Page 1 of 1 PageID 81
**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**

|   | (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 the operation of                the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/              Lincoln M.              Dastrup                        |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Lincoln                M. DastrupChief                Executive Officer |   |   |        |
| September                26, 2007                                       |   |   |   |
Case 3:05-cv-00202-M Document 17 Filed 03/21/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 46
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00202-M Document 17 Filed 03/21/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID 47
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00202-M Document 17 Filed 03/21/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID 48
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00202-M Document 17 Filed 03/21/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID 49
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00202-M Document 17 Filed 03/21/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID 50
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00202-M Document 17 Filed 03/21/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID 51
Calvin WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2415

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 16, 2019.

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
31.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





I, Roy O.
Estridge, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2008 of Valley Commerce Bancorp;





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)) 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.)
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





(c.)
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 of 2008 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a.) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





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





Date:
November 12, 2008





/s/
      Roy O. EstridgeRoy
      O. EstridgeChief
      Financial Officer




35
# C_2018013EN.01001003.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/10

---

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 24 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Skarb Państwa reprezentowany przez Wojewodę Dolnośląskiego v Gmina Trzebnica

(Case C-19/17) (1)

1

(2018/C 013/14)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

1

---
# C_2017347EN.01002002.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from Vestre Landsret (Denmark) dated 18 August 2017, C&D Foods Acquisition ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-502/17)

(2017/C 347/27)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring Court

Referring Court

Vestre Landsret

Parter

Parter

Applicant: C&D Foods Acquisition ApS

Applicant:

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Should Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a holding company, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is entitled to a full deduction of VAT on input services related to due diligence investigations before an envisaged, but not completed, sale of shares in a subsidiary to which the holding company supplies management and IT services that are subject to VAT? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Should Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a holding company, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is entitled to a full deduction of VAT on input services related to due diligence investigations before an envisaged, but not completed, sale of shares in a subsidiary to which the holding company supplies management and IT services that are subject to VAT?

1

| 2) | Is the answer to the above question affected by the fact that the price for the VAT taxable management and IT services, which the holding company supplies for the purposes of its economic activity, is a fixed amount corresponding to the holding company’s expenditure on employees’ salaries, with the addition of a ‘mark-up’ of 10 %? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is the answer to the above question affected by the fact that the price for the VAT taxable management and IT services, which the holding company supplies for the purposes of its economic activity, is a fixed amount corresponding to the holding company’s expenditure on employees’ salaries, with the addition of a ‘mark-up’ of 10 %?

| 3) | Irrespective of the answer to the foregoing questions, can a right of deduction exist if the consultancy costs at issue in the main proceedings are regarded as general costs, and if so, on what conditions? |
| --- | --- |

3)

Irrespective of the answer to the foregoing questions, can a right of deduction exist if the consultancy costs at issue in the main proceedings are regarded as general costs, and if so, on what conditions?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)

1

---
Sophia DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1772

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.66  



         

  


n e w s    r e l e a s e 


NORANDA CLOSES SALE OF PRIORITY UNITS OF NORANDA INCOME FUND  


TORONTO, July 17, 2003 — Noranda Inc. (NRD: NYSE, TSX) today announced that
it has closed the sale of its remaining 11,984,900 Priority Units of Noranda Income Fund (NIF.UN: TSX), at a price of $9.85 per unit, to a syndicate of underwriters led by CIBC World
Markets Inc. and Scotia Capital Inc. Following the offering, Noranda still has a 25% interest in the Fund through its holding of Ordinary Units of Noranda Income Limited Partnership,
which are exchangeable on a one for one basis for Priority Units of the Fund upon the occurrence of certain events. Net proceeds of the sale were used by Noranda toward repayment of debt. 


Noranda Inc. is a leading international mining and metals company with more than 49 mining and metallurgical operations and projects under
development in 17 countries. Noranda is one of the world's largest producers of zinc and nickel and is a significant producer of copper, primary and fabricated aluminum, lead, silver, gold, sulphuric
acid and cobalt. Noranda is also a
major recycler of secondary copper, nickel and precious metals. Noranda employs over 15,000 people. It is listed on The Toronto Stock Exchange and The New York Stock Exchange
(NRD).


The Noranda Income Fund was created to acquire Noranda's CEZinc Processing Facility and ancillary assets located in
Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec. The Processing Facility is the second-largest zinc processing facility in North America and the largest zinc processing facility in eastern
North America, where the majority of its customers are located. It produces refined zinc metal and various by by-products from zinc concentrates purchased from mining
operations.


— 30 — 


Contact:


Dale
Coffin

Director, External Communications

Noranda Inc.

dale.coffin@toronto.norfalc.com

Tel: 416-982-7161

www.noranda.com
I, Derek Ward, the President, Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Empirical Ventures,  Inc. (the Registrant), certify that; (1)I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant;(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)I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for the Registrant and have:a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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; andc)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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and(5)I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.  May 15, 2008/s/Derek WardBy:Derek WardPresident, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 1 of 33 PageID 19460
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 2 of 33 PageID 19461
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 3 of 33 PageID 19462
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 4 of 33 PageID 19463
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 5 of 33 PageID 19464
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 6 of 33 PageID 19465
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 7 of 33 PageID 19466
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 8 of 33 PageID 19467
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 9 of 33 PageID 19468
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 10 of 33 PageID 19469
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 11 of 33 PageID 19470
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 12 of 33 PageID 19471
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 13 of 33 PageID 19472
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 14 of 33 PageID 19473
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 15 of 33 PageID 19474
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 16 of 33 PageID 19475
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 17 of 33 PageID 19476
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 18 of 33 PageID 19477
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 19 of 33 PageID 19478
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 20 of 33 PageID 19479
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 21 of 33 PageID 19480
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 22 of 33 PageID 19481
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 23 of 33 PageID 19482
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 24 of 33 PageID 19483
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 25 of 33 PageID 19484
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 26 of 33 PageID 19485
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 27 of 33 PageID 19486
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 28 of 33 PageID 19487
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 29 of 33 PageID 19488
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 30 of 33 PageID 19489
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 31 of 33 PageID 19490
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 32 of 33 PageID 19491
 

 Case 3:06-cv-00271-B Document 697 Filed 02/06/09 Page 33 of 33 PageID 19492
Exhibit 4.3


 


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated October 6, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-212831) of Smart Trust 269,
comprising Smart Trust, California Municipal Portfolio of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 5.


 


	 	/s/ Grant Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


October 6, 2016
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

LESLIE CARROLL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No. 5:05-CV-234-C

Defendant. ) ECF

ORDER

Plaintiff is appealing an adverse decision of the Defendant, Jo Anne B. Barnhart,

Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The United States Magistrate

Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on July 19, 2006. No written objections have been

filed. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the findings and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation are

hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court and that the above-styled and

-numbered cause is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated this 10th day of August, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 5:05-cv-00234-C Document 18 Filed 08/11/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 71
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ALLAN RAY McFARLAND, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:06-CV-028-Y

 §

COLE JETER, Warden, §

FCI-Fort Worth, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Allan Ray McFarland under

28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of the

following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

January 24, 2006; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on February 16, 2006.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that McFarland’s

objections must be overruled, and that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's

findings and conclusions. 

Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00028-Y Document 7 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 39
2

McFarland’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SIGNED February 22, 2006.

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00028-Y Document 7 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 40
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MILAD ALLAHAM,

 Petitioner

 v.

RAOAEH NADAF,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 201 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6240

ROBERT EARL SMITH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDANT HACKWORTH,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01449-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: July 3, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Earl Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) 

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief 

on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made 

the requisite showing. Specifically, Smith’s failure to challenge in his informal brief the 

district court’s finding that he has not yet exhausted his state court remedies forecloses 

our consideration of that dispostitive ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1,234 1,253 1,272 1,244 1,301

186 192 177

156

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

FCC FTEs History By Fund Category

FY 2019 - FY 2023

Non-Auction FTEs Auction FTEs

1,422 1,439

1,464

1,421 1,457

188