alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.0A





SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS





I,
Benedict Van, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of hereUare,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





1. the
First Amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); 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:
April 16, 2010





/s/ Benedict VanBenedict
      VanChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


The
material contained in Exhibit 32.0 is not deemed "filed" with the SEC and is not
to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made
before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
exv10w1



 







EXHIBIT 10.1




[enherent Corp. Letterhead]




December 31, 2005




Mr. Douglas Mellinger

1241 Westover Road

Stamford, CT 06902




	 	 	 
	Re:

	 	Agreement and Non-Qualified
Stock Option Agreement dated September 14, 2004
	 

	 	by and between enherent Corp. and Douglas Mellinger






Dear Doug,




This letter shall serve as written amendment to the Agreement and associated Non-Qualified Stock
Option Agreement dated September 14, 2004 between you and enherent Corp. (the “Company”). You will
continue under my direction to provide assistance to the Company related to the development of the
Company’s corporate strategy, including but not limited to market position and acquisition strategy
through the termination date of the Agreement (December 31, 2007). You will as of December 31,
2005, relinquish your non-employee Vice Chairman position. The Company will pay your monthly fee
of $5,000 through June 30, 2006. No further payments will be due and owing or paid under the terms
of the Agreement by the Company. In June 2006, the Company agrees to consider the issue of what if
any compensation will be paid to you for services provided beyond June 30, 2006. The Company will
keep in full force and effect the Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, provided that the shares
thereunder that are unvested as of the date hereof shall vest as follows: (i) one-sixth of such
unvested shares shall vest as of the date hereof, and (ii) the balance of such unvested shares
shall vest in five equal annual installments of shares on September 14 of each year beginning
September 14, 2006 and shall be fully vested on September 14, 2010.



All other terms and conditions of the Agreement and Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect without modification.



Your signature below acknowledges your agreement to this amendment. Please sign this letter as
indicated, retain a copy for your files, and return the original letter to my attention.



Sincerely,




/s/ Pamela Fredette

Pamela Fredette

President & CEO



Accepted:



/s/ Douglas Mellinger          

Douglas Mellinger
#### The People of the State of New York v Tony Ramos.

Motion for vacatur of a prior order of this court granted and the order entered on October 27, 1987 (133 AD2d 589) is vacated, and counsel is directed to file a supplemental brief for the January 1990 Term, all as indicated. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
# C_2022207EN.01003301.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission

(Case T-350/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of airfreight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Ne bis in idem principle - State coercion - Single and continuous infringement - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Singapore Airlines Ltd (Singapore, Singapore), Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd (Singapore) (represented by: J. Kallaugher, J.P. Poitras, Solicitors, and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents, and C. Brown, Barrister)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it relates to the applicants, and, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

| 3. | Orders Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo to bear their own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo to bear their own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---
Clear All

        01 August 2023    

                    Submarines Visit the World’s Busiest Cruise Port                 
                CAPE CANAVERAL, Fl. - Earlier this year, Port Canaveral edged passed Miami as the busiest commercial cruise port in the world, hosting more than 4 million passengers in a single year with nearly a dozen cruise ships claiming Port Canaveral as their homeport.             

        02 May 2023    

                    Miami Marlins Host Fleet Week Service Members to a Memorable Evening at the Ballpark                 
                 More than 500 Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen “invaded” loanDepot Park Friday, April 28 to enjoy Military Night with the Marlins.The service members were from the commands participating in Fleet Week Port Everglades from April 23-30. Not only did they get to enjoy the action on the field but            

        24 April 2023    

                    Ships Arrive in Fort Lauderdale for Fleet Week Port Everglades                 
                FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – For the next week, Southeast Florida residents will have the opportunity to see and tour Navy and U.S. Coast Guard ships as the 32nd Fleet Week Port Everglades kicks into gear.U.S. Navy destroyer, USS Cole (DDG 67), a ship commissioned in 1996 in Fort Lauderdale, was the            

        11 August 2022    

                    USS Indiana returns from deployment                 
                GROTON, Conn. - The Virginia-class fast attack submarine USS Indiana (SSN 789) returned to its homeport of Naval Submarine Base New London on Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2022, after a deployment of more than six months.            

        11 August 2022    

                    USS Indiana Sailor proposes on the pier after deployment                 
                GROTON, Conn. - Petty Officer 2nd Class Andrew Frable was away from his beloved for more than six months while deployed aboard USS Indiana (SSN 789). When he returned to her Wednesday, he asked her for a lifetime together.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### ROTHLISBERGER et al. v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 8, 1923.)

No. 3760.

Criminal law <§=>394—Searches and seizures <§=>3—Search warrant ’held valid and evidence procured thereunder admissible.

That a search warrant described the premises to be searched only by street and number, which number was not exactly that of the premises searched, or that the person named therein was neither the householder nor owner of the premises searched, but was a member of the owner’s family, *held*not to render, the warrant invalid, or evidence secured thereby inadmissible against him.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio; John M. Killits, Judge.

Criminal prosecution by the United States against Ernest Rothlisberger, Sr.,"and Louis Rothlisberger. Judgment of conviction, and defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

@=oFor other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests *&*Indexes

*73Neal H. Deeds-and Stanley A. Grzezinski, both of Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiffs in error. •

Gerard J. Pilliod, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio (E. S. Wertz, U. S. Atty., of Cleveland, Ohio, and George R. Effler, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Toledo, Ohio, on the brief), for the United States.

Before KNAPPEN, DENISON, and DONAHUE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs in error, father and son, were con-_ victed of having in their possession, with knowledge, property which had been stolen while in interstate transportation, and of having thereby violated section 1 of the Act of February 13, 1913 (37 Stat. 670, U. S. C. S. § 8603).

A search warrant, which formed the basis for admitting certain evidence, is attacked because the property to be searched was identified only by giving the street and (an erroneous) number, and because the person named therein was neither the householder nor the owner of the premises. The building searched, 121 Hay street, was a single family residence, occupied by the Rothlisberger family, and owned by the mother, and E. Rothlisberger, the person named in the warránt, was a member of that family, an adult son living there. The warrant gave the number as 123. There is nothing to show that there was any building No. 123, or any room for doubt as to the house intended.

.We find no justification, upon principle or authority, for thinking that the proceedings under the search warrant were unlawful for either of these reasons. While the evidence to charge the father with the essential guilty knowledge was wholly circumstantial, we think it was sufficient to give legal basis for the conclusion which the jury reached. The large quantities of other property, not named in the indictment but found in the house and said to have been also stolen from railroad cars, had a distinct tendency to show this knowledge.

We find in the assignments of error nothing else which we think calls for comment.

The judgment is affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 20 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 20 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
# C_2020378EN.01002502.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Slovenia v Commission

(Case T-626/17) (1)

(Agriculture - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Designations of origin in the wine sector - Wine labelling - Use of the name of a wine grape variety which contains or consists of a protected designation of origin - Prohibition - Derogation - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1353 - Inclusion of the name of the wine grape variety ‘teran’ in the list set out in Part A of Annex XV to Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 - Retroactive effect from the date of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Slovenian protected designation of origin ‘Teran’ - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Right to property - Act concerning the conditions of accession of Croatia to the European Union - Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making - Institutional balance)

(2020/C 378/29)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and T. Mihelič Žitko, acting as Agents, and by R. Knaak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers, I. Galindo Martín and B. Rous Demiri, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Croatia (represented by: G. Vidović Mesarek, acting as Agent, and by I. Ćuk, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1353 of 19 May 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 as regards the wine grape varieties and their synonyms that may appear on wine labels (OJ 2017 L 190, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Croatia to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Croatia to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05898-RJS Document 6-4 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 21 of 21
**Exhibit
      32**






**CERTIFICATIONS**




By
      signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to his or her knowledge, (i) this report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Union
      Community Bancorp.




Signed
      this 14 th day of
      November 2005.





/s/
                J. Lee Walden
            
            /s/
                Alan L. GrimbleJ.
                Lee Walden
            
            Alan
                L. GrimbleChief
                Financial Officer
            
            Chief
                Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Union Community Bancorp and will be
      retained by Union Community Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 3 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 3 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 3 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05867-PAC Document 3 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 4 of 4
# Exhibit 32

| | Certifications
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of First Southern
BanCorp. (the Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date
of this certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
          with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ F. Thomas David
F. Thomas DavidPresident and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 26, 2004

| |  | By: /s/ Charles R. Fennell
Charles R. FennellChief Financial Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 26, 2004
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 42-5 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 42-5 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 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 this Quarterly Report of Zion Nevada Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shawn Wright, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

By:   */s/ Shawn Wright*

       Shawn Wright

       Chief Executive Officer

       Chief Accounting Officer

 

Dated:  May 3, 2008

  

 

 

 

 
`
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Henry STACKS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-4206.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 28, 2013.

John Henry Stacks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Henry Stacks, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion for an evidentiary hearing as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion, and denying it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stacks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Stacks’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

> *202(1) newly discovered evidence that ... would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

> (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp.2012). Stacks’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 32


SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF JOHN M. PECK AND SYLVIA QUINTERO




SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION




In connection with the quarterly report of International Aerospace Enterprises, Inc. (“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to their 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 operations of the Company.




Dated: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ John M. PeckJohn M. Peck,Chief Executive Officer




Dated: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Sylvia C. QuinteroSylvia C. Quintero,Treasurer