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, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Diane Dottavio, 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 13, 2004                            /s/ Diane Dottavio
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Diane Dottavio, Ph.D.
                                                  Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
# m8598.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.8.2017 C(2017) 6040 final To the notifying parties: Subject : Case M. 8598 – BNPP / STARWOOD / HOTEL PORTFOLIO Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 04 August 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the u ndertakings BNP Paribas Group (' BNPP ' , France) and Starwood Ho tels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC (' Starwood ' , United States), belonging to Marriott International, Inc. (' Marriott ' , United States), acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint contr ol of two hotels in Italy (the 'Hotel Portfolio' ), by way of purchase of shares and pre-existing hotel management agreements. 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - for BNPP: banking group with domestic and international operations. Its two core businesses are: (i) Retail Banking & Services, and (ii) Corporate & Institutional Banking, - for Starwood: wholly-owned subsidiary of Marriott. Marriott is a diversified hospitality company which acts as a manager and franchisor of some 6 080 hotels and timeshare properties worldwide, - for the Hotel Portfolio: two hotels located in Italy (the Westin Palace in Milan and the Westin Europa & Regina in Venice) currently indirectly managed by Marriott. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( b ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
( S igned) Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 264 , 11 . 08 . 2017 , p. 25 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| 1.     | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period                ending March                31,                2007,                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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the period ending March                31,                2007,                fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition                and                results of operations of Alliance Recovery                Corp. |

**ALLIANCE      RECOVERY CORP.**

*/s/      Peter Vaisler*
No. 85-1640.

#### Dineen *v.*Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar.

Sup. Jud. Ct. Me. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Armitage Mining Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Lawrence
Stephenson,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
9th day of August, 2005.


/s/  Lawrence Stephenson
---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10416

Conference Calendar

 

JAMES A. GILBERT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN TOMBONE, Warden, Federal

Correctional Institution at

Seagoville,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-3043-P

- - - - - - - - - -

December 9, 1998

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James A. Gilbert, federal prisoner # 60342-079, appeals the

district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He also

moves this court for release pending appeal. The motion for release is

DENIED. Because the relief he sought concerned a nonconstitutional

sentencing issue that could have been raised on direct appeal, his

claims were not cognizable in § 2241 or § 2255. This appeal is

frivolous. See Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997). 

It is DISMISSED.
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Robert Van Nest, Eugene Paige, Justina Sessions, Gary Bornstein, Yonatan 

Even, Brent Byars, Jordan Peterson, and Geoff Holtz

Defendant’s Attorneys: Jennifer Milici and Daniel Matheson

A pretrial conference was held on December 13, 2018. At the pretrial conference, the 

Court made the following rulings on the record:

By December 17, 2018, each party shall provide notice to third parties of any third-party 

confidential information that may be disclosed at trial, so that the third party may seek to seal their 

information. The parties have already given such notice to third parties regarding trial exhibits. 

This December 17, 2018 deadline applies to deposition testimony, trial testimony, and 

demonstratives.

For all joint sealing motions, the parties shall include a chart with a row for each 

document, testimony, demonstrative or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed. The chart shall 

also include five additional columns that describe:

1. whose confidential information is to be sealed;

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1003 Filed 12/13/18 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. where the confidential information appears;

3. the relevant standard for sealing;

4. the number of the paragraph in a specific declaration that justifies the sealing of that 

information under the relevant standard; and

5. any explanations.

By December 28, 2018, the parties shall reduce their number of exhibits to 400 per side. At 

trial, the parties shall be limited to the 126 exhibits currently on the joint exhibit list plus 220 

exhibits each for a total of 566 exhibits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1003 Filed 12/13/18 Page 2 of 2
A.J., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2661

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                         32,058,000
<SECURITIES>                                   20,167,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,251,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      188,000
<INVENTORY>                                    10,006,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               76,212,000
<PP&E>                                         13,799,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,479,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 87,478,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,427,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                       64,959,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      8,238,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   87,478,000
<SALES>                                        42,292,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               42,292,000
<CGS>                                          36,633,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  36,633,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,080,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (447,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3,026,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                       97,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3,123,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    50,000
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,073,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                         .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .69



</TABLE>
Steven King SHELTON v. STATE

CR-16-0838

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018 Reh. denied March 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
S.T., Mother of J.G.T., a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-0405

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1526 Filed 08/23/19 Page 1 of 7
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1526 Filed 08/23/19 Page 2 of 7
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1526 Filed 08/23/19 Page 3 of 7
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1526 Filed 08/23/19 Page 4 of 7
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1526 Filed 08/23/19 Page 5 of 7
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1526 Filed 08/23/19 Page 6 of 7
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1526 Filed 08/23/19 Page 7 of 7
Myron MONROE v. STATE

CR-17-0029

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018 Reh. denied March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Zylorain, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| August 18, 2005 | /S/ William F. Webster__________ |
|-----------------|----------------------------------|

William F. Webster, 

President and CEO, and Chief Financial Officer
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 Quarterly Report of BankFinancial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul A. Cloutier, Executive Vice President and 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:

(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/ PAUL A. CLOUTIER                                 |  |  |  | Dated: April 29, 2009
|Paul A. Cloutier                                     |  |  |  |                      
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |                      

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BankFinancial
Corporation and will be retained by BankFinancial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



38
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42039

STATE OF IDAHO
,

Plaintiff-Respondent
,

v.

DENNIS JOHN HALSETH
,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 461

Filed: April 15, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Benjamin R. Simpson , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentence s of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years , for bu rglary, grand theft, and eluding a peace officer

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Dennis John Halseth was found guilty of burglary (Idaho Code § 18

- 1401) , grand theft

(I.C. § 18

- 2403(1)) , and eluding a peace officer (I.C. § 49

- 1404(2)) . The district court sentenced

Halseth to concurrent unified terms of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of

five years

. Halseth appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing

excessive sentences.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed t he record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Halseth ’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHNNY EADS, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:06-CV-014-Y

 §

COLE JETER, Warden, §

FCI-Fort Worth, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 of petitioner Johnny Eads, along with the

March 30, 2006, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

United States magistrate judge. The magistrate judge gave the

parties until April 20 to file written objections to the findings,

conclusions, and recommendation. As of the date of this order, no

written objections have been filed. 

The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this

case, and has reviewed for clear error the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendation of the United States magistrate

judge filed on March 30, 2006. The Court concludes that the

petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for the

reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.

 Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of

the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.

Respondent Jeter’s March 13, 2006, motion to dismiss [docket

no. 7] is GRANTED.

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00014-Y Document 12 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 64
2

Johnny Eads’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SIGNED April 27, 2006.

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00014-Y Document 12 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 65
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7334

CHARLES W. BARLOW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEBRA JEAN KELLY, Manager of Self Service Gas

and Groceries Excetra at Chenoweth's Ashland

Service Station on Parsons Road; BUTCH'S ASHLAND, Gilman, West Virginia; JAMES R. FOX;

JORY AND SMITH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-61-2)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles W. Barlow, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and various post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barlow v. Kelly, No. CA-96-61-2 (N.D.W.

Va. July 12, 1996, Feb. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

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

AFFIRMED