alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1





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



In connection with this Quarterly Report
of Paradigm Resource Management Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30,
2012, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M.
Price, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2012 , fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|2. | The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2012 , fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |     |                                                                                                                | 
|--------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: August 20, 2012 | By: | /s/ Robert M. Price                                                                                            | 
|                      |     | Robert M. Price                                                                                                | 
|                      |     | Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)
        Paradigm Resource Management Corporation | 
|                      |     |                                                                                                                |
142 So. 917

#### Lucy C. HILLMAN v. James H. HILLMAN et al.

3 Div. 995.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 26, 1932.

Warren S. Reese and Warren S. Reese, Jr., both of Montgomery, for appellant.

*696Hill, Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, of Montgomery, for appellees. ■

THOMAS, J.

Corrected and affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
# C_2020215EN.01000501.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2020 — Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE v European Commission

(Case C-244/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Capital injections and State guarantees - Concept of State aid - Concept of ‘advantage’ - Private operator principle - Private investor test - European Commission’s obligation to undertake a diligent and impartial examination - Judicial review - Burden of proof - Concept of ‘firm in difficulty’ - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring - Guarantee Notice - 2011 temporary framework - Amount of aid to be recovered - Duty of the Commission and the General Court of the European Union to state reasons)

(2020/C 215/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (represented by: I. Drillerakis, E. Rantos, N. Korogiannakis, I. Soufleros, E. Triantafyllou, and G. Psaroudakis, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 1 February 2018, Larko v Commission (T-423/14, EU:T:2018:57), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court rejected the first part of the first plea in law to the extent that it relates to a guarantee granted in 2008 by the Greek State to Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE concerning a loan of EUR 30 million granted by ATE Bank to Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 1 February 2018, Larko v Commission (T-423/14, EU:T:2018:57), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court rejected the first part of the first plea in law to the extent that it relates to a guarantee granted in 2008 by the Greek State to Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE concerning a loan of EUR 30 million granted by ATE Bank to Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE;

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

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

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

City of Midland, * From the County Court at

Law No. 2 of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CC

- 14,397.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00117

- CV * April 1 7 , 2014

M.T.D. Environmental, L.L.P., * Opinion by Wright, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Bailey, J., and McCall, sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the

order of the trial court is reversed in part

, and judgment is rendered dismissing the

claims made in this lawsuit by M.T.D. Environmental, L.L.P. under the Prompt

P ayment Act. We affirm as to the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear M.T.D.’s claims

under Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code , and we remand that

portion of this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion

. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against M.T.D.

Environmental, L.L.P.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

April 17, 2023

Submitted via Portal 

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick 

Office of the Secretariat 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Re: Confidential Treatment Request – Exhibit B - AEGIS SEF Self Certification

Dear Sir:

AEGIS SEF, LLC (“AEGIS SEF”) hereby requests that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (the “Commission”) accord confidential treatment to Exhibit B (“Exhibit”), which 

were submitted to the Commission as 40.2 Listing products for trading by certification on this 

date. This request pertains to all material in the Exhibit. The Exhibit bears the designation 

“Confidential Treatment Requested by AEGIS SEF, LLC.”

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to Commission Regulations 40.8, as 

Exhibit contains information that would reveal the trade secrets or confidential commercial or 

financial information of AEGIS SEF and its affiliates. 

Please contact the undersigned at 832-413-5973 or afurman@aegis-hedging.com with any 

questions regarding this matter.

Andrew Furman

Chief Compliance Officer

AEGIS SEF, LLC

2829 Technology Forest Blvd

Suite 260

The Woodlands, TX 77381
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1162

Natural Gas Index Swaps - Dawn - Platts Gas Daily Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price 

published by Platts Inside FERC Dawn, for Floating Price B, from the average of the daily prices 

published by Platts Gas Daily Dawn, for Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the arithmetic average of the Platts 

Gas Daily Dawn published price for each calendar day of the corresponding contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC Dawn

published price for the corresponding contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the 

contract quantity multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certification

         I, Sheldon R. Rose, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Premier Nursing Products Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended August 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Premier
Nursing Products Corporation.

September 24, 2007                      By: /s/ Sheldon R. Rose
                                            -------------------
                                            Sheldon R. Rose,
                                            Principal Executive Officer and
                                            Principal Financial Officer

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Sunwin International Neutraceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by
Premier Nursing Products Corporation and furnished to the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
IN THP SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ANA MARIA SALAS, No. 84667 

Appellant, 

vs. 

GABINO G IJARDADO, 

Respondent. SEP 5 2E2 

• q7, ' 

jP 'JURDi-.PL 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a 

motion for relief under NRCP 60(b). Eighth Judicial District Court, Family 

Court Division, Clark County; Rebecca Burton, Judge; Eighth Judicial 

District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Heidi Almase, Judge. 

On June 8, 2022, the clerk of this court entered an order 

granting appellant a telephonic extension of time, until July 5, 2022, to file 

and serve the fast track statement. Appellant did not file the fast track 

statement. On July 21, 2022, this court entered an order that among other 

things, directed appellant to file and serve the fast track statement by 

August 4, 2022. The order cautioned that failure to timely file and serve 

the fast track statement could result in the dismissal of this appeal. When 

appellant still did not file the fast track statement, this court entered an 

order on August 22, 2022, directing appellant to file and serve the fast track 

statement by September 6, 2022. The order cautioned that failure to timely 

comply could result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal 

of this appeal as abandoned. To date, appellant has failed to file the fast 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

101 1 ,147A _ cko7-
track statement or otherwise communicate with this court. Accordingly, it 

appears that appellant has abandoned this appeal, and this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

•

-7 

Hardesty 

, J. 

J. 

Stiglich Herndon 

CC: Hon. Heidi Almase, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Hon. Rebecca Burton, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Ana Maria Salas 

Mills & Anderson Law Group 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

9
20 S Wacker Dr Chicago, IL 60606 T 312 466 7478 tim.elliott@cmegroup.com cmegroup.com

Timothy Elliott

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel

Legal Department

October 17, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for

FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Acts Compliance

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request 

To Whom It May Concern:

By electronic portal dated today, October 17, 2023, NEX SEF Limited (“NEX SEF”) submitted a 

supplemental rule certification filing (Submission No. 23-441S) to the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6 to certify modifications

to NEX SEF’s Fee Schedule for the renewal of LATAM EBS NDF Connectivity Incentive Program and the 

expiration of the EBS on-SEF UK/US Crossover Market Maker Program (collectively, the “Programs”).

This supplemental filing includes an Appendix A (blacklined version) and an Appendix B (clean version).

NEX SEF requests confidential treatment of Appendix A and Appendix B (“Confidential Information”), on

the grounds that Appendix A and Appendix B contain confidential commercial information of the submitter 

(NEX SEF). NEX SEF requests that confidential treatment be maintained for Appendix A and Appendix B

until further notice from NEX SEF. We also request that the Commission notify the undersigned 

immediately after receiving any FOIA request for said Appendix A or Appendix B or any other court order, 

subpoena, or summons for same. Finally, we request that we be notified in the event the Commission 

intends to disclose such Appendix A or Appendix B to Congress or to any other governmental agency or 

unit pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA. NEX SEF does not waive its notification rights under Section 8(f) of 

the CEA with respect to any subpoena or summons for such Appendix A or Appendix B.

Please contact the undersigned at (312) 466-7478 should you have any questions concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Timothy Elliott

Managing Director and Chief Regulatory Counsel
#### Denis J. Butler, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 15, 2010;

decided June 8, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. The order denying the CPLR 4404 motion to set aside the verdict resolves the issues raised on the CPLR 4404 motion; it does not dispose of all of the issues in the action *(see*CPLR 5611). The final and *910appealable paper to the Court of Appeals is the final judgment entered after the denial of the motion or an Appellate Division order resolving an appeal from that judgment *(see Cuadrado v New York City Tr. Auth.,*14 NY3d 748 [2010]).
Exhibit
 32(i)



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



In
 connection with the report on Form 10-Q of Sonnen Corporation for the quarterly period endedDecember
 31, 2009,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert
 Miller, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
 that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | This 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:
 February 22, 2010



/s/
 Robert Miller

Robert
 Miller

Chief
 Executive Officer



This
 certification accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
 required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933,
 as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective
 of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.   A signed original of this written statement required by
 §906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
 Commission or its staff upon request.

13
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7460

BLAKE SANDLAIN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. BARBARA RICKARD, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Bluefield

. David A. Faber , Senior District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv
- 00025

- DAF )

Submitted : April 16, 2020 Decided: April 20, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Blake Sandlain, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM:
Blake Sandlain , a federal prisoner , appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge , denying his motion for injunctive relief, and denying relief on Sandlain’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (201 8 ) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court

. Sandlain v. Rick ard , No. 1:19

- cv
- 00025

- DAF (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 2019)

. 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
EXHIBIT 32




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 Monarch Investment Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, David Miller, President and Principal Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/Philip BloomPrincipal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting OfficerOctober 8, 2010/s/David MillerPresident and Principal Executive OfficerOctober 8, 2010




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.




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.




23
# C_2020215EN.01001101.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 March 2020 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-576/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Recovery of unlawful aid granted to the hotel industry in Sardinia - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Penalty payment and lump sum)

(2020/C 215/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, F. Varrone and E. Manzo, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take, on the date on which the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice issued on 11 July 2014 by the European Commission, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 29 March 2012, Commission v Italy (C-243/10, not published, EU:C:2012:182), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFUE. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take, on the date on which the period prescribed in the letter of formal notice issued on 11 July 2014 by the European Commission, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 29 March 2012, Commission v Italy (C-243/10, not published, EU:C:2012:182), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFUE.

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 80 000 per day from the date of delivery of the present judgement until the date of compliance with the judgment of 29 March 2012, Commission v Italy (C-243/10, not published, EU:C:2012:182). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment of EUR 80 000 per day from the date of delivery of the present judgement until the date of compliance with the judgment of 29 March 2012, Commission v Italy (C-243/10, not published, EU:C:2012:182).

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum EUR 7 500 000. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay to the European Commission a lump sum EUR 7 500 000.

| 4. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---