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

|CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
|---------------------------------------------
|PURSUANT TO                                  
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jarrett F. Bousquet, the Principal Executive Officer of
Yaterra Ventures Corp. (the Company), hereby certify 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 my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2008, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                           

| | By:    | /s/ Jarrett F. Bousquet           
| | ------ | ----------------------------------
| |        |                                   
| | Name:  | Jarrett F. Bousquet               
| |        |                                   
| | Title: | President, Secretary and Treasurer
| |        | (Principal Executive Officer)     
| |        |                                   
| | Date:  | February 27, 2009                 
| |        |                                   

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 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 of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2471 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2471

   To prohibit the use of the poisons sodium fluoroacetate (known as 
      ``Compound 1080'') and sodium cyanide for predator control.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2019

 Mr. DeFazio (for himself, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Norton, Ms. 
   Bonamici, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Ted Lieu of California) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the use of the poisons sodium fluoroacetate (known as 
      ``Compound 1080'') and sodium cyanide for predator control.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chemical Poisons Reduction Act of 
2019'' or the ``Canyon's Law''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this Act is to restrict the use of the poisons 
sodium fluoroacetate (known as ``Compound 1080'') and sodium cyanide to 
kill predatory animals given the risks posed by such poisons to--
            (1) public safety;
            (2) national security;
            (3) the environment; and
            (4) persons and other animals that come into accidental 
        contact with such poisons.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CERTAIN POISONS FOR PREDATOR CONTROL.

    (a) Prohibited Act.--Sodium fluoroacetate (known as ``Compound 
1080'') and sodium cyanide may not be used in a predator control 
device.
    (b) Penalty.--Whoever uses sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide 
in a predator control device shall be fined under title 18, United 
States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    (c) Predator Control Device Defined.--In this section, the term 
``predator control device'' means--
            (1) a dispenser designed to propel sodium fluoroacetate or 
        sodium cyanide when activated by an animal;
            (2) a livestock protection collar designed to release 
        sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide when punctured by an 
        animal;
            (3) a gas cartridge or other pyrotechnic device designed to 
        emit sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide fumes; and
            (4) any other means of dispensing sodium fluoroacetate or 
        sodium cyanide, including in the form of capsules, for wildlife 
        management or other animal control purposes.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE v. McCLENDON

No. 392A98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 368

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the court of Appeals allowed 30 December 1998. Justice Wynn recused.
#### Bostock and Wife *v.*Goodrich.1

*Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.*

November 6, 1885.

Patents for Inventions—Infringement—Profits—Damages—Evidence.

Complainants received letters patent 64,404 and 80,269 for improvements in tuck-markers, which proved to be of little value. Defendant made improvements on same which cured the defects and rendered the device marketable. Complainants obtained a decree for assessment of damages and profits for infringement of the above patents. *Held,*that complainants must show what proportion of profits arising from the sale of the improved tuck-markers was due to the original invention, and that, failing in that, they were entitled to nominal damages only.

In Equity.

*11. T. Fenton,*for complainants.

*L. L. Bond,*for respondent.

1

 Reported by C. B. Taylor, Esq., of tlie Philadelphia bar.

Butler, J.

The infringement complained of and decreed against, is of claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 of patent No. 64,404, and claim 1 of patent No. 80,269.

These claims are for *improvements*in “tuck-markers,” consisting of minor combinations and devices employed in such machines. Tuck-markers (differing from the complainant’s only as respects these combinations and devices) had been in use for many years prior to the date of these patents. The complainant simply improved the old machines, rendering them more serviceable than before, by increasing their adaptability to the use contemplated.

The rule for ascertaining profits, applicable to the case, is therefore, the one applied in *Garretson*v. *Clark,*111 U. S. 120, S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291, and more recently in *Dobson*v. *Carpet Co.,*114 U. S. 439, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945.

While, therefore, we might possibly not agree in all the master has said upon the subject of profits, his conclusion is right. The burden rested on the complainant to prove the proportion of profits justly ascribable to his improvements. Having failed in this he is entitled only to nominal damages.

The exceptions must be dismissed and the report confirmed.
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 20, 2010 |   |   |
|--------------------|--------|--------|

|   | PREMIER ENERGY CORP. |                                                                                |
|--------|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                 |                                                                                |   |
|   | By:                  | /s/ Anton Prodanovic                                                           |   |
|   |                 | Anton Prodanovic, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|   |                 |                                                                                |   |
|   |                 |                                                                                |   |

|   |   |                                                                               |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                               |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Alexey Goleshev                                                           |   |
|   |   | Alexey Goleshev, Chief Financial Officer and Director(Principal Financial Officer) |   |
|   |   |                                                                               |   |
#### RONALD E. SHACKELFORD, et al., Petitioners v. CITY OF WILMINGTON, Respondent

No. 561PA97

(Filed 9 October 1998)

On writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, 127 N.C. App. 449, 490 S.E.2d 578 (1997), affirming an order and judgment entered 10 April 1996 by Cashwell, J., in Superior Court, New Hanover County. Heard in the Supreme Court 28 September 1998.

*Shipman & Associates, L.L.P., by Gary K. Shipman and C. Wes Hodges, II, for petitioner-appellants.*

*Thomas C. Pollard, City Attorney, for respondent-appellee.*

*Adams Hendon Carson Crow & Saenger, P.A., by Martin K. Reidinger, on behalf of the Good Neighbors Association of North Carolina, amicus curiae.*

*North Carolina League of Municipalities, by John M. Phelps, II, Assistant General Counsel, amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

Justice Webb took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. *See Nesbit v. Howard,*333 N.C. 782, 429 S.E.2d 730 (1993).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of TheraBiogen, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(1)    The quarterly report on form 10-Q of the Company for the annual period ended May 31, 2011 (“the Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and





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







Dated: July 20, 2011
By:
/s/ Mark D. ShoomanMark D ShoomanChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Quarterly Report of NRDC Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Richard A. Baker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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.






Date:
      May 7, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      RICHARD A. BAKERRichard
      A. BakerChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1739

CLOTHILDA WILLIAMS

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

OFFICER BERGER; SERGEANT ENGLISH; OFFICER JENNINGS, Crash Crew Investigator; JOHN DOE; JOHN DOE; JOHN DOE; HENRICO POLICE DEPARTMENT; VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY

,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv

- 00433

- JAG )

Submitted : November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Clothilda Williams , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1739 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Clothilda Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm

. 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.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1739 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
# Exhibit 21

# Subsidiaries

Vascular Solutions, GmbH
(Germany)

---
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Principal** **Financial
      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 SRKP 15, Inc. (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, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.




/s/
                  Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                  C. Pintsopoulos
                Principal
                  Financial Officer
                April
                  24, 2008
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 27, 2017

No. 04-15-00754-CV

Melecio Arturo MOLINA,

Appellant

v.

Melecio Arturo MOLINA, Jr. and Patricia Molina,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CVQ001900 C1

Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice 

Marialyn Barnard, Justice 

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellees’ motion for rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of July, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 18, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00630

- CR & 04

- 16

- 00631

- CR

C ody Lon SMITH

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B

- 07

- 057 & B

- 15

- 631

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, C hief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

M

. Patrick Maguire, appellant’s newly appointed appellate counsel, has fi led a letter

stating does not adopt the brief filed by former counsel. We therefore strike the brief filed by

former counsel and deny the motion for extension of time to file it as moot. We order

appellant’s brief due August 17, 2017

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of July, 2017

.___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
# C_2018436EN.01004301.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2018 — M & K v EUIPO — Genfoot (KIMIKA)

(Case T-171/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark KIMIKA - Earlier EU word mark KAMIK - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 436/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M & K Srl (Prato, Italy) (represented by: initially by F. Caricato, and subsequently by M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Genfoot, Inc. (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) (represented by: E. Saarmann and P. Baronikians, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2017 (Case R 1206/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Genfoot and M & K.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders M & K Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders M & K Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---
#### Allan S. MATTHEWS, petitioner, v. Jim NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 06-506.

Nov. 27, 2006.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1170

MONIKA GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES ASKINS, Dr.; STANLEY K. GILBERT, Dr.;

WILLIAM S. BRITT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-224-5-BR)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monika Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Monika Gonzalez appeals the district court’s order denying her

motion to reopen her case. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Gonzales has not stated any reason which warrants granting her relief from the judgment dismissing her complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Accordingly, we affirm. We

deny Gonzalez’s motion to adopt attachments filed in a prior appeal. 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
The HONORABLE D. BROOK BARTLETT, Chief Judge, United States

1

District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2616

___________

Robert V. Steinhilber, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, * Western District of Missouri.

Attorneys-at-Law; Paul R. *

Lamoree, Esq., * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: March 4, 1998

 Filed: March 17, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Steinhilber appeals from the district court&s adverse grant of summary 1

judgment in this diversity action for abuse of process and intentional infliction of

emotional distress. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the grant of

summary judgment involved no error requiring reversal. For the reasons stated by the

district court, we also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
-2-

denying Steinhilber&s motion to disqualify the district court judge, and sanctioning

Steinhilber for a frivolous motion. We further conclude the district court did not abuse

its discretion by denying Steinhilber&s motion to amend his complaint. Accordingly,

we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

Appellees& motion to strike Steinhilber&s brief is denied. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.