alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B) OF**

**THE      SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND 18 U.S.C.**

**SECTION      1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

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

| (b) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                September 22, 2008 | STONE                CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |                                           |   |
|                                     | By:                                            | /s/                Michael Stone |
|                                     |                                           | Michael                Stone |
|                                     |                                           | President                and |
|                                     |                                           | Chief                Executive Officer |
|                                     |                                           | (Principal                Executive Officer and Principal Financial                Officer) |

----
# C_2019172EN.01003201.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — United Wineries v EUIPO — Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín (VIÑA ALARDE)

(Case T-779/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark VIÑA ALARDE - Earlier national word mark ‘ALARDE’ - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2019/C 172/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: United Wineries, SA (Cenicero, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín, SL (Cigales, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 (Case R 281/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín and United Wineries.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders United Wineries, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders United Wineries, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

The Summer General Board Meeting will meet in Irvine, California on June 18-29, 2001 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The purpose of the meeting is to draft initial findings and recommendations for each study. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with section 552b(c) of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and (4) thereof.

For further information, contact the HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat at (703) 697-8404.

Janet A. Long,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-12448 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)





I,
      Thomas
      W. Martin, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of ICON Capital
      Corp., the Manager of the Registrant in connection with the Annual Report of
      ICON Income Fund Nine, LLC (the "LLC”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
      December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the "Annual Report") certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.
            The
                Annual 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);
                and





2.
            The
                information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                the LLC.








*Dated:  August
      23, 2007*





*/s/Thomas A. Martin*


Thomas
      W.
      Martin


Chairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President of the Manager


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


ICON
      Capital Corp.


Manager
      of ICON Income Fund Nine, LLC
EXHIBIT 31.1 Certification of 
Principal Executive Officer CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Martin Schuermann, President and Chief Executive Officer of Vision Industries Corp., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), certify that: 1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company; 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.     The Company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 Company 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 Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Company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 Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting. Date:  November 23, 2009  /s/MARTIN SCHUERMANNMartin Schuermann
Principal Executive Officer
144 So. 461

#### E. L. GATLIN v. STARR PIANO CO.

4 Div. 661.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 10, 1932.

E. O. Baldwin, of Andalusia, for petitioner.

A. Whaley, of Andalusia, opposed

PER CURIAM.

On the authority of Simpson v. State, 214 Ala. 176, 106 So. 898; Messer v. State, 221 Ala. 379, 129 So. 97; Ballard v. State, 219 Ala. 222, 121 So. 502, and Hardy v. First National Bank, 219 Ala. 435, 122 So. 702, we cannot review the opinion of the Court of Appeals on the point argued by petitioner.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
# C_2020036EN.01001301.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 December 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-642/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/98/EC - Articles 30 and 33 - Waste management plans - Autonomous Communities of the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands (Spain) - Obligation to revise - Obligation to notify the Commission - No proper formal notice - Letter of formal notice sent prematurely - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 36/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and E. Sanfrutos Cano and F. Thiran, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.

---
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 Annual Report of Global Pharmatech, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of 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.

     A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or
its staff upon request.


/s/ Xiaobo Sun
-------------------------------
Name:  Xiaobo Sun
Title: Chief Executive Officer and President


This Certification of the Chief Executive Officer is pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This exhibit is not "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as
provided by applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
#### Celluloid Manuf’g Co. and others *v.*Noyes and others. Same *v.*American Zylonite Co. and others.

*Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

October 31, 1885.

Patents for Inventions—Celluloid Combs—Want of Invention.

Patent ISlo. 223,311, dated January (i, 1880, and granted to William Booth, lor improvement in the manufacture of combs from celluloid and analogous material, *held*void.

In Equity.

*Frederick II. Betts,*for complainants.

*E. B.*Smith, for Noyes and others.

*E. M. Felt,*for American Zylonite Co.

Colt, J.

The defendants are charged with infringement of letters patent No. 223,311, dated January 6, 1S80, granted to William Booth for improvement in the manufacture of combs from celluloid and analogous material. The device consists in the application of a stream or jet of water to or near the saw while the teeth of the comb are being cut. The claims are as follows:

> (1) The process of making combs of celluloid and analogous material herein set forth, consisting in the application of a stream or jet of water to or near the saw while the teeth of the comb are being cut, substantially as set forth.

> (2) The process of making combs of celluloid or analogous material herein set forth, in which a jet or stream of water is applied to or near the saw while the teeth of the comb are being cut, substantially as set forth.

The use of water upon a saw or cutting tool, to lubricate it, diminish friction and consequent heat, is old. It has been used in making combs, rings, piano keys, and numerous other articles out of ivory, mother of pearl, rubber, and other materials; and it also appears that it has been previously applied to sawing knife-handles of celluloid.

In view of the well-known and common use of water upon a cutting tool, we must hold this patent void for want of invention. In dealing with a material of the character of celluloid, the use of water upon the saw would seem to suggest itself to the most ordinary mechanic.

The complainants seek to uphold the patent and escape the charge of double use, on the ground that new results are accomplished by the application of this process to the manufacture of combs from celluloid. Water in the Booth process performs its usual duty of lubrication, keeping the saw cool, and preventing it from buckling, and also keeping the material cool, and preventing it from softening, so as to bend, or from catching on fire.

Bearing in mind what has been accomplished by the use of a similar process, we are unable to discover, notwithstanding the skillful *320and elaborate argument of complainants’ counsel, any such new re suits in the use of the Booth process as would warrant the court in sustaining the patent on this ground. Bills dismissed.
Exhibit 23

MCNAIR, MCLEMORE, MIDDLEBROOKS & CO., LLP

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

389 Mulberry Street  Post Office Box One 
Macon, GA 31202

Telephone (478) 746-6277  Facsimile (478) 743-6858

www.mmmcpa.com



|                                        |  |                              
|--------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|RALPH S. McLEMORE, SR., CPA (1902-1981) |  |                              
|SIDNEY B. McNAIR, CPA (1913-1992)       |  |                              
|                                        |  | RICHARD A. WHITTEN, JR., CPA 
|SIDNEY E. MIDDLEBROOKS, CPA, PC         |  | ELIZABETH WARE HARDIN, CPA   
|RAY C. PEARSON, CPA                     |  | CAROLINE E. GRIFFIN, CPA     
|J. RANDOLPH NICHOLS, CPA                |  | RONNIE K. GILBERT, CPA       
|WILLIAM H. EPPS, JR., CPA               |  | RON C. DOUTHIT, CPA          
|RAYMOND A. PIPPIN, JR., CPA             |  | CHESLEY P. CAWTHON, JR., CPA 
|JERRY A. WOLFE, CPA                     |  | CHARLES A. FLETCHER, CPA     
|W. E. BARFIELD, JR., CPA                |  | MARJORIE HUCKABEE CARTER, CPA
|HOWARD S. HOLLEMAN, CPA                 |  | BRYAN A. ISGETT, CPA         
|F. GAY McMICHAEL, CPA                   |  | DAVID PASCHAL MUSE, JR., CPA 

March 22, 2006

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report, dated
March 22, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Newnan Coweta Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary included in this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, into the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 relating to the Newnan Coweta Bancshares, Inc. 2001 Incentive Stock Option Plan (File #333-92440), as filed with the SEC on July 16, 2002.



LOGOMcNAIR, McLEMORE, MIDDLEBROOKS & CO., LLP
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tremere Charles GREEN, a/k/a Tremere Charles Trice, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50372.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 6, 2006.*

Decided June 8, 2006.

Kevin Lally, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dale Michael Rubin, Esq., San Marino, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Tremere Green appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.

Green was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in *618violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He contends that the government’s use in its criminal investigation of his non-legal telephone conversations — recorded while he was being held in pre-trial custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”)— violated the Fourth Amendment and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (“Title III”).

This case is directly controlled by *United States v. Van Poyck,*77 F.3d 285 (9th Cir.1996), in which we held that persons in custody pending trial have no reasonable expectation of privacy in outbound calls made from detention facilities. *Id.*at 291. Even if the Fourth Amendment otherwise would bar use of the interceptions, we would find, as we did in *Van Poyck,*that Green’s consent to the taping of his phone calls vitiated his Fourth Amendment claim. *Id.*In *Van Poyck,*we also held when presented with a nearly identical claim that two exceptions to Title III were applicable. *Id.*at 291-92. The same two exceptions— the “law enforcement” exception and the consent exception — apply here; therefore, there was no violation of Title III.

Green’s claim that the MDC disclosed the tape recorded calls to the prosecution, which then used the recordings in its investigation, does not distinguish his claim from that in *Van Poyck*in any material respect; nor does it otherwise provide a basis for establishing a violation of either the Fourth Amendment or Title III. Accordingly, Green’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2017104EN.01005201.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/52

---

Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Bank Tejarat v Council

(Case T-37/17)

(2017/C 104/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, T. Otty, R. Blakeley, V. Zaiwalla, and H. Leith, Barristers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the Council to pay the applicant compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the Council’s imposition of restrictive measures by way of the following acts, concerning restrictive measures against Iran: Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 2), Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 (OJ L 92, 8.4.2015, p. 101), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 12); the followings sums should be paid to the applicant: 1 494 050 000 USD in respect of material damage, 1 000 000 EUR in respect of non-material damage, and interests on those amounts; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicant compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the Council’s imposition of restrictive measures by way of the following acts, concerning restrictive measures against Iran: Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 2), Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 (OJ L 92, 8.4.2015, p. 101), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 12); the followings sums should be paid to the applicant: 1 494 050 000 USD in respect of material damage, 1 000 000 EUR in respect of non-material damage, and interests on those amounts;

| — | order the Council to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

The applicant alleges that the Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon individuals and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the European Union is engaged. This breach was the direct cause of significant material and non-material harm to the applicant for which it is entitled to compensation.

---