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

               CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the annual report of Endovasc, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), I, David P. Summers,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.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.


Date:  October 14, 2003               /s/ David P. Summers
                                      ----------------------------
                                      David  P.  Summers
                                      Chief  Executive  Officer


                                       20
<PAGE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1197 CA 15-00602**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY DESA, M.B., B.S., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, WILLIAM D. GRANT, Ed.D., AND STEPHEN J. KNOHL, M.D., RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ROBERT M. GOLDFARB OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
WEISBERG & ZUKHER, PLLC, SYRACUSE (DAVID E. ZUKHER OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (James P. Murphy, J.), entered March 10, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The order, among other things, held respondents in civil contempt of prior orders of the court.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 1 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 2 of 30
The schedule remains in place. 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Bernard Zimmerman

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 3 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 4 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 5 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 6 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 7 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 8 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 9 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 10 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 11 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 12 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 13 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 14 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 15 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 16 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 17 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 18 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 19 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 20 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 21 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 22 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 23 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 24 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 25 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 26 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 27 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 28 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 29 of 30
Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 104 Filed 04/24/08 Page 30 of 30
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

TONI MACIEL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50035

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-03130-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Toni Maciel appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952

and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

SEP 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-50035

Maciel contends that the district court erred by denying a minor role

adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). This argument is without merit. Contrary

to Maciel’s contention, the district court did not state that first-time courier drivers

could never qualify for a minor role adjustment, and the court did not err in

denying the adjustment here. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d

1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 154 

Congratulating the people of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on the 

centennial of the founding of the Jordanian state. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 13, 2021 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself and Mr. HAGERTY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the people of the Hashemite Kingdom of 

Jordan on the centennial of the founding of the Jordanian state. 

Whereas the late King Abdullah bin Al Hussein arrived in 

Amman on March 2, 1921, and began working to establish a political system based on the Arab demand for 

independence, reaffirming the renaissance approach 

spearheaded by his father, Al Hussein bin Ali; 

Whereas the Amirate of Trans-Jordan was established on 

April 11, 1921; 

Whereas the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan achieved independence on May 25, 1946; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 154 IS 

Whereas the United States recognized Jordan as an independent state in a White House announcement on January 31, 1949; 

Whereas the United States and the Hashemite Kingdom of 

Jordan have maintained diplomatic relations since 1949, 

and during this 72-year partnership, the United States 

and Jordan have continued to develop a close relationship 

in security, economic development, and counterterrorism 

cooperation; 

Whereas the economic partnership between the United States 

and Jordan was further strengthened by the signing of 

the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement on October 24, 2000, which was fully implemented on January 

1, 2010; 

Whereas the United States is committed to Jordan’s stability, 

prosperity, and security throughout the years, which has 

been reflected in 3 memoranda of understanding covering 

fiscal years 2010 through 2022, which demonstrate a 

strong, multi-year strategic relationship between the 2 

countries; 

Whereas Jordan continues to host 53 nationalities of refugees 

and is home to the second highest number of refugees per 

capita globally, with more than 1,300,000 Syrians, 

660,000 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees-registered refugees, and millions of Palestinian refugees; and 

Whereas King Abdullah II has been a leading Arab voice in 

moderation and interfaith dialogue, by spearheading initiatives such as ‘‘A Common Word’’ and the 2004 

‘‘Amman Message’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 154 IS 

1 (1) commemorates the centennial of the estab2 lishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; 

3 (2) expresses its profound admiration and grati4 tude for the friendship of the Jordanian people, who 

5 continue to demonstrate great generosity for those 

6 in need; 

7 (3) shares the hope of His Majesty King 

8 Abdullah II and the Jordanian people for a more 

9 peaceful Middle East; and 

10 (4) looks forward to our continued close co11 operation with His Majesty King Abdullah II and 

12 Jordan on our shared priorities of security, economic 

13 development, and humanitarian issues. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Donald D. WEST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-4

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 9, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE THOMAS, an individual.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SNAP-ON INCORPORATED, a Delaware

corporation,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-56525

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01435-JAHRBB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2015** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Bruce Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his

post-judgment requests for an early neutral evaluation and a settlement conference

in his action alleging that defendant misappropriated his intellectual property. We

FILED

MAR 02 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the district

court had subject matter jurisdiction, Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th

Cir. 2002), and review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s compliance

with its local rules concerning early neutral evaluation, Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d

1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Contrary to Thomas’s contention, the district court had subject matter

jurisdiction over his action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal courts have “original

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

the United States”); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (federal subject matter jurisdiction

exists over disputes involving citizens of different states and an amount in

controversy over $75,000.00). 

 The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thomas’s postjudgment requests for an early neutral evaluation and a settlement conference

because Thomas did not have a complaint pending before the court. See Bias, 508

F.3d at 1223 (“Broad deference is given to a district court’s interpretation of its

local rules.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also CivLR

16.1(c)(1) (an early neutral evaluation conference must be held within forty-five

days of the filing of an answer or, if the answer has not been filed, as determined

by the assigned judicial officer). 

2 12-56525
Thomas’s motion to expedite, filed on December 18, 2014, is denied as

moot. 

AFFIRMED.

3 12-56525
Case 4:05-cv-00565-A Document 21 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 79
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00565-A Document 21 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 80
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00565-A Document 21 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 81
Leonardo RAMOS, Appellant, v. M & T BANK, Appellee.

No. 3D18-439

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

Leonardo Ramos, in proper person.

McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, and Jacqueline J. Brown and Sean P. Belmudez (Tampa), for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DENESHYA AUGUSTA POOLE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 339 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of October, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD   Document 255   Filed 01/04/19   Page 1 of 1
# C_2018112EN.01000601.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2017 — College Pension Plan of British Columbia v Finanzamt München III

(Case C-641/17)

(2018/C 112/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: College Pension Plan of British Columbia

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt München III

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the freedom of movement of capital under Article 63(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 65 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State under which a non-resident institution operating an occupational pension scheme whose essential structure is similar to a German pension fund does not receive any relief from tax on income from capital in respect of dividends received, whereas such dividend distributions to domestic pension funds do not result in any increase in their corporation tax liability, or only a comparatively small one, because the latter are able to reduce their taxable profit in a tax assessment procedure by deducting the amounts reserved to meet their pension payment obligations and to neutralise the tax on income from capital through a set-off, and also receive a refund in the event that the amount of corporation tax payable is less than the amount set-off? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the freedom of movement of capital under Article 63(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 65 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State under which a non-resident institution operating an occupational pension scheme whose essential structure is similar to a German pension fund does not receive any relief from tax on income from capital in respect of dividends received, whereas such dividend distributions to domestic pension funds do not result in any increase in their corporation tax liability, or only a comparatively small one, because the latter are able to reduce their taxable profit in a tax assessment procedure by deducting the amounts reserved to meet their pension payment obligations and to neutralise the tax on income from capital through a set-off, and also receive a refund in the event that the amount of corporation tax payable is less than the amount set-off?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is yes: is the restriction of the free movement of capital through Paragraph 32(1) No 2 of the Law on corporation tax permissible with respect to third countries under Article 63 TFEU in conjunction with Article 64(1) TFEU because it relates to the provision of financial services? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is yes: is the restriction of the free movement of capital through Paragraph 32(1) No 2 of the Law on corporation tax permissible with respect to third countries under Article 63 TFEU in conjunction with Article 64(1) TFEU because it relates to the provision of financial services?

---
EX PARTE Ronnie HOPSON

1161069 (2150836)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 5, 2011

d0928 

# Order

October 5, 2011

142931 & (63)

PRIME FINANCIAL SE RVICES, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142931 COA: 290735 Kent CC: 01-010952-CK CASEY VINTON, Defendant,

and

BANK ONE, NA, f/k/a BANK ONE MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the January 6, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that th e questions presented
should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH and H ATHAWAY , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN J. MILLMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND 

SOCIETY, FSB, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04123-VC 

REFERRAL FOR PURPOSE OF 

DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(c), the above-entitled case is hereby REFERRED to 

Judge Edward M. Chen for consideration of whether the case is related to Millman et al v. 

Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB et al, No. 3:16-cv-07402-EMC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2017

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-2318V

UNPUBLISHED

ANNA REEVES, on behalf of her minor 

child, L.R.,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: August 19, 2022

Withdrawal of petition; Order 

concluding proceedings

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On December 21, 2021, Anna Reeves filed a petition for compensation on behalf 

of her minor child, L.R., under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34.

2 Petitioner alleged that L.R. suffered injuries after 

receiving a human papillomavirus vaccination on June 19, 2019, and those injuries 

worsened after a second human papillomavirus vaccination on June 18, 2020. ECF No. 

1.

Because a decision had not been issued within the time specified in Vaccine 

Rule 10(b), a notice issued advising that “that the petitioner may withdraw the petition 

under section 300aa—21(b) of this title or the petitioner may choose under section 

300aa—21(b) of this title to have the petition remain before the special master.” 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa—12(g). On August 18, 2022, Petitioner timely filed a notice to withdraw 

the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—21(b). 

In light of Petitioner’s election to withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa—21(b) (promulgated as Vaccine Rule 10(d)), Petitioner’s request to withdraw the

petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that 

proceedings “on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment 

“on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk’s Office.

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available 

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, 

I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Richard MCBEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0819

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 20, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 20, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A1914. ROLLINS INC. et al. v. M.A.C. BUILDING, INC..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with this Annual Report of Champps Entertainment, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K/A for the period ended June 27, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2005 (the Report), I, Michael P.
ODonnell, President and Chief Executive 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 my knowledge on the date hereof:

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: May 5, 2005 |  | By: /s/ Michael P. O'Donnell
      Michael P. ODonnell
      President and Chief Executive Officer