alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Atlas America Public #10 Ltd. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the MGP, 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            March
      30, 2009
#### THE PHŒNIX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY *v.*THE STEAMER POUGHKEEPSIE &c. AND THE STEAMER HOMER RAMSDELL &c. CENTRAL HUDSON STEAMBOAT COMPANY, CLAIMANT.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 401.

Motion to dismiss or affirm. —

Submitted October 26, 1908.

Decided November 30, 1908.

The judgment of the admiralty court dismissing for want of jurisdiction a libel against a vessel for damages to a pipe on the bottom of the Hudson River, affirmed without opinion.

*Mr. E. Crosby Kindetberger*for libellant appellant:

*Mr. J. Parker Kirlin*for claimant appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

Decree affirmed with costs. *Cleveland Terminal & Valley Railroad Company*v. *Cleveland Steamship Company,*208 U. S. 316; *The Troy,*208 U. S. 321.
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Report of Data Storage Consulting Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Neil Bernstein, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.
  Date: November 19, 2008
                By:
                /s/  Neil
      BernsteinNeil Bernstein
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
# C_2020313EN.01001902.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 3 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Proceedings brought by YV, interested party Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa

(Case C-537/18) (1)

(2020/C 313/24)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
# C_2020320EN.01001501.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/15

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, supported by: French Republic

(Case C-164/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS CASTRO-RAMIREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70017

Agency No. A074-149-446

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Carlos Castro-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from

an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen deportation

proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

FILED

JAN 29 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).
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Arrieta v. INS,

117 F.3d 429, 430 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Castro-Ramirez’s motion

to reopen on the ground that notice was proper and Castro-Ramirez failed to rebut

the strong presumption of effective service arising from the service of his hearing

notice by certified mail. See id. at 431; Matter of Grijalva, 21 I. & N. Dec. 27, 37

(BIA 1995).

The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely CastroRamirez’s motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status, where he was

required to file that motion by September 30, 1996, but filed it more than 10 years

later. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (a motion to reopen deportation or exclusion

proceedings must be filed no later than 90 days after a final order or on or before

September 30, 1996, whichever is later); Matter of M-S-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 356-

57 (BIA 1998) (a motion to reopen an in absentia order to apply for adjustment of

status is subject to requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)). 

Castro-Ramirez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial

discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See

Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,

2 09-70017
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at

any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 09-70017
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 Steele Recording Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mack
Steele, 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/ Mack
Steele


Mack
Steele


Chief
Executive Officer


Chief
Accounting Officer





Dated:  May
11, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Eugene MORRISON, a/k/a Craig Winner, a/k/a Silvio Ducati, a/k/a Cali, a/k/a Gene, a/k/a Jack, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Eugene Morrison, a/k/a Craig Winner, a/k/a Silvio Ducati, a/k/a Cali, a/k/a Gene, a/k/a Jack, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 13-6809, 13-6929.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 30, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 7, 2013.

Larry Eugene Morrison, pro se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Thomas A. O’Malley, Office of the United *312States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Eugene Morrison seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion, and denying his motion to compel. The order denying Morrison’s § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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 Morrison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the district court’s order denying habeas relief. Likewise, we have reviewed the record and Morrison’s claims with regard to the denial of his motion to compel and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying that motion. We deny Morrison’s motions for bail, to expedite, to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government expense. Finally, 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.*
# C_2017104EN.01005801.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/58

---

Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte)

(Case T-69/17)

(2017/C 104/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: E. Saarmann and P. Baronikians, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ — Application for registration No 13 971 163

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 2205/2015-5

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul Decision No 013971163 of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 September 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision No 013971163 of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 25 September 2015;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 24.8

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

I, Alan Kessman, a duly elected Director of COMDIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, do hereby constitute and appoint Ralph R. Dyer and Carla K. Luke,
or either of them, my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, each with full power of
substitution, for me and in my name, place and stead, in any and all capacities
(including without limitation, as Director of Comdial), to sign Comdial's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, which is to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, with all exhibits thereto, and any
and all documents in connection therewith, hereby granting unto said
attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform any and
all acts and things requisite and necessary to be done, and hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent may do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof. This power of attorney shall not terminate upon my disability.

Dated: 03/27/03


       /s/ Alan Kessman
       -------------------------------------
       Alan Kessman
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2325 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 301
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2325

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 2019

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                            November 7, 2019

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 Calle Alondra in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as the ``65th Infantry 
                    Regiment Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 65TH INFANTRY REGIMENT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Calle Alondra in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shall be known 
and designated as the ``65th Infantry Regiment Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``65th 
Infantry Regiment Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 301

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2325

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 Calle Alondra in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as the ``65th Infantry 
                    Regiment Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 7, 2019

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of GeoBio Energy, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), John Sams, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ John Sams


By: John Sams


Its: Authorized Officer





/s/ John Sams


By: John Sams


Its: Chief Financial Officer, Chairman





January 13, 2011





[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GeoBio Energy, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
# C_2019383EN.01002001.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 September 2019 — HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-123/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant following its inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Action for damages - Conditions which must be met in order for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability - Concept of ‘sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law’ - Assessment - Concept of ‘company owned or controlled’ - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 383/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (represented by M. Schlingmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by R. Tricot, M. Kellerbauer and C. Zadra, and subsequently by R. Tricot, C. Hödlmayr and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2017, HTTS v Council (T-692/15, EU:T:2017:890); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 December 2017, HTTS v Council (T-692/15, EU:T:2017:890);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
Amendment No. 1 to the 2007 PTS Holding Corp. Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.16 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 

TO THE 

2007 PTS HOLDINGS CORP. 

STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the 2007 PTS Holdings Corp. Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is executed by PTS Holdings Corp. (the
“Company”) as of the date set forth below. 
 W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan to foster the long-term growth and performance of the Company; 

WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares
of common stock of the Company available for issuance under the Plan and to set aside a portion of such shares specifically for the grant of restricted stock units under the Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the Board reserved the right, pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan, to make certain amendments thereto. 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan, and effective as of the date hereof, the Board hereby amends the Plan as
follows: 
  

	 	1.	The first sentence of Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety as follows: 


 

	 	  	“Subject to Section 9, the total number of Shares which may be issued under the Plan is 81,407, of which 3,882 Shares are specifically set aside for
the grant of restricted stock units hereunder.” 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, PTS HOLDINGS CORP., by its duly authorized officer,
has caused this Amendment No. 1 to the 2007 PTS Holdings Corp. Stock Incentive Plan to be signed this
8th day of September, 2010. 

 

			
	PTS HOLDINGS CORP.
		
	 By:
	 	/s/ Michael Dal Bello
		 	 
		
	 Its:
	 	
		 	 


  

 2
Internal

Eurex Clearing AG

Weekly Summary of Rule Amendments

No. 058-22

August 19, 2022

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(d), Eurex Clearing AG (“Eurex Clearing”) submits this Weekly 

Notification of the following rule amendments issued during the week of August 15, 2022:

• Eurex Clearing Circular No. 058-22 (August 16, 2022): Amendments to the Clearing Conditions 

of Eurex Clearing AG and other related documents – End of Consultation. This circular states 

that there were no comments received regarding the amendments set forth in Eurex Clearing 

Circular No. 053-22, which was submitted previously as a 40.6 submission, and confirms the 

effective date of October 24, 2022 stated in that circular.

Copies of the above material is available at: https://www.eurex.com/ec-en/find/circulars. If you require 

any additional information, please contact the undersigned at (312) 544-1087.

Sincerely,

/s/ Eric Seinsheimer

By: Eric Seinsheimer

Title: US CCO, Eurex Clearing AG

Dated: August 19, 2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BRYAN PHILLIP BONHAM, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Res • ondent. No. 84406 

# FILE APR 1 4 2022 EUZABEM A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK ORDER DENYING PETITION This pro se original petition seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to supply petitioner free copies of written orders regarding petitioner's motion to correct illegal sentence and petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (petitioners bear the burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted).

Petitioner has not demonstrated that he requested and was denied free copies by the district court in the first instance. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Even assuming the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should first be directed to and resolved by the district court. See State v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that "this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district coure in the first instance), abrogated

SUPFtEPAE COURT

OF NEVADA (0) I947A ?-I 7 

### 4,3on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294

P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). 1 Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. 2

Parraguirre j ,J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Bryan Phillip Bonham Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

1 To the extent the district court has not yet issued a written order regarding petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this court is confident the district court will issue a written ruling as expeditiously as its calendar permits.

2 Petitioner's March 18, 2022, "Notice of Motion/Petition" is denied.

SUPREME Couffr Of NEVADA
101 1947A catIVIo. 2