alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Global Brands Acquisition Corp. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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: February 13, 2008


/s/ Joel J. HorowitzName:


Joel J. HorowitzTitle:


Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---
#### Robert MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. c/o GILBERT, Ini McNeil Island Correction Center; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-36050.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 4, 2012.

Robert Mitchell, Walla Walla, WA, pro se.

Lynn Marie Mounsey Longmeier, Assistant Attorney General, Office of The Attorney General, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Mitchell, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Jones v. Blanas,*393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

*595The district court properly granted summary judgment on the interference with mail and access to court claims because Mitchell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants interfered with Mitchell’s communications with his attorney, or whether a restriction, other than mail that violated the stop contact order, was placed on his incoming or outgoing mail. *See Taylor v. List,*880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (party opposing summary judgment may not rest on conclusory allegations or mere assertions).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mitchell’s claim for restoration of and/or proper calculation of good time credit because resolution of the claim would necessarily implicate the length of Mitchell’s confinement. *See Edwards v. Balisok,*520 U.S. 641, 645, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (challenge to loss of good-time credits not cognizable under § 1983); *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (§ 1983 claims that necessarily challenge the fact or duration of confinement are barred).

Mitchell’s contention that the district court should have granted him a continuance so that he could conduct additional discovery fails because Mitchell did not move the court for additional discovery as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). *See Barona Grp. of the Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Am. Mgmt. & Amusement, Inc.,*840 F.2d 1394, 1400 (9th Cir.1987) (reference to a need for discovery in memoranda and declarations insufficient to satisfy requirements for Rule 56 motion for additional discovery).

We decline to consider Mitchell’s challenge to the lawfulness of the stop contact order. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (court of appeals will not consider issues not properly raised before the district court).

Mitchell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.1

                    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 Quarterly Report of Kahzam, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. FRANKLIN BRADLEY,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant toss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
17th day of July, 2009.


/s/ J. FRANKLIN BRADLEY
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# CE2012188EN.01007201.xml

| 28.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 188/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 188/72

---

Tuesday 15 February 2011Agreement between the EU and Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports ***

P7_TA(2011)0049

European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 February 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (16364/2010 – C7-0400/2010 – 2010/0228(NLE))

2012/C 188 E/22

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (16364/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (16364/2010),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (13712/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Federative Republic of Brazil on short-stay visa waiver for holders of ordinary passports (13712/2010),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0400/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0400/2010),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0011/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0011/2011),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Federative Republic of Brazil. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Federative Republic of Brazil.

---
# C_2010228EN.01000801.xml

| 25.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/8

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 228/06

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Castres (Mazamet)–Paris (Orly) |
| Period of validity of the contract | 1.4.2011-31.3.2015 |
| Deadline for submission of applications and tenders | — | for applications (first step):
  22.10.2010 (12.00, local time) |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Castres (Mazamet)–Paris (Orly)

Period of validity of the contract

1.4.2011-31.3.2015

Deadline for submission of applications and tenders

—

for applications (first step):

22.10.2010 (12.00, local time)

| — | for tenders (second step):
  3.12.2010 (12.00, local time) |
| --- | --- |

—

for tenders (second step):

3.12.2010 (12.00, local time)

Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

| Chambre de Commerce et d’industrie de Castres — Mazamet |
| --- |
| 40 allées Alphonse Juin |
| BP 30217 |
| 81101 Castres Cedex |
| FRANCE |
| Mme Chambert |
| Tel. +33 0563514614 |
| Fax +33 0563514699 |
| E-mail: f.chambert@castres-mazamet.cci.fr |

Chambre de Commerce et d’industrie de Castres — Mazamet

40 allées Alphonse Juin

BP 30217

81101 Castres Cedex

FRANCE

Mme Chambert

Tel. +33 0563514614

Fax +33 0563514699

E-mail: f.chambert@castres-mazamet.cci.fr

---
```

[Federal Register: May 11, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 92)]
[CORRECTIONS]
[Page 24183]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11my01-120]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 160


Privacy of Consumer Financial Information

Correction

    In rule document 01-10398 beginning on page 21236 in the issue of
Friday, April 27, 2001, make the following correction:


Sec. 160.18  [Corrected]

    On page 21261, in the second column, in Sec. 160.18(a), last line,
``June 21, 2001'' should read ``March 31, 2001''.

[FR Doc. C1-10398 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
```

[Federal Register: February 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 8347]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18fe05-47]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, March 11, 2005.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: Surveillance matters.

For Further Information Contact: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-3284 Filed 2-16-05; 11:00 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SPENCER LEE KEYS, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. §

§ § No. 127, 2021 § § Court Below - Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1810001625 (S) § § § Submitted: June 4, 2021 Decided: June 22, 2021

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and MONTGOMERY-REEVES , Justices.

ORDER After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that: (1) On April 27, 2021, the appellant, Spencer Lee Keys, filed a notice of appeal from his conviction in the Superior Court. The Superior Court sentenced Keys on November 13, 2019. Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 11, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before December 13, 2019. (2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Keys to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In response to the notice to show cause, Keys states that he was unaware of the deadline for filing an appeal.2 This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal when the notice of appeal is not timely filed, unless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. 1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable time period to be effective. 2 The failure to file a timely appeal in this case is not attributable to court-related personnel. Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. (3) Keys also suggests that he is attempting to appeal the Superior Court’s order denying his motion for sentence reduction and his motion for postconviction relief. Keys did not identify that order in the notice of appeal as the subject of this appeal. Nor did Keys file the notice of appeal within the required period with respect to that order. The Superior Court order denying the motions for sentence reduction and for postconviction relief was dated September 9, 2020 and docketed on September 10, 2020. Thus, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before October 12, 2020. Keys states that he was unaware that the Superior Court had denied his motions until after he requested a copy of the docket on February 5, 2021, and then requested a copy of the order on March 8, 2021. He admits that he received a copy of the order by March 17, 2021. Even assuming that a notice of

1 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 2 D EL

. S UPR

. C T

. R. 10(a).3 appeal filed within thirty days of his receipt of the order would be timely, he did not file within that period. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice
#### Hallston Manor Farm, LLC, Respondent, v Julie Lynn Andrew, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 379]—

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered February 11, 2008. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate an order entered upon her default and to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, the order dated June 15, 2007 is vacated, and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Defendant moved to vacate an order that was entered upon her default, and she sought dismissal of the complaint based on, inter alia, lack of personal jurisdiction. *1331Supreme Court conducted a traverse hearing following the submission by defendant of affidavits in support of her contention that service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) was improper. Although the process server did not testify at the hearing, his affidavit of service was admitted in evidence. The process server stated therein that he affixed the summons and complaint to defendant’s door and mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to defendant’s address on that same date, after making several prior attempts to serve process *(see*CPLR 308 [4]). We agree with defendant that the court erred in admitting that affidavit in evidence pursuant to CPLR 4520. Contrary to the court’s determination, the affidavit was not admissible under CPLR 4520 inasmuch as the process server was not “required or authorized, by special provision of law” to make the affidavit of service *(cf. People v Hudson,*237 AD2d 943 [1997], *lv denied*89 NY2d 1094 [1997]). We reject plaintiffs alternative contention that the affidavit of service was admissible under CPLR 4531. There was no showing that the process server could not “be compelled with due diligence to attend at the [traverse hearing]” (CPLR 4531; *cf. Koyenov v Twin-D Transp., Inc.,*33 AD3d 967, 969 [2006]; *Laurenzano v Laurenzano,*222 AD 2d 560 [1995]). We thus conclude that plaintiff failed to meet its “ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process” *(Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas,*303 AD2d 343, 343 [2003]; *see generally Bank One Natl. Assn. v Osorio,*26 AD3d 452, 453 [2006]; *U.S. 1 Brookville Real Estate Corp. v Spallone,*21 AD3d 480, 481-482 [2005]; *Boudreau v Ivanov,*154 AD2d 638 [1989]). We therefore conclude that defendant is entitled both to vacatur of the order entered upon her default and to dismissal of the complaint. Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.
EXHIBIT 3.4

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT  TO THE BYLAWS  OF  VALENTIS, INC.  A Delaware corporation

The undersigned, being the duly acting and appointed Secretary of Valentis, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby certifies that effective March 13,
2002, the Board of Directors of this corporation amended the Bylaws of this corporation as follows, effective as of the date set forth below:

1.    Article XIII,
Section 45 of the Bylaws is amended to read in its entirety as follows:



2.    The
following provision is added to the Bylaws as Article XV, Section 48:



---



|Dated: August 1, 2002 |                                                
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|                      | /s/ALAN C. MENDELSONAlan C. Mendelson,Secretary

2

---

QuickLinks
H. Res. 1044 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 3, 2010. 

Whereas during the Holocaust, an estimated 6,000,000 Jews 

and other targeted groups were murdered by the Nazis 

and their collaborators; 

Whereas, on January 27, 1945, Auschwitz, a Nazi concentration and extermination camp, including Birkenau and 

other related camps, was liberated by the Soviet Army; 

Whereas Auschwitz, located in Poland, was the largest complex of the Nazi concentration and extermination camps; 

Whereas according to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, between 1940 and 1945, the Nazis deported at a minimum 

1,300,000 people to Auschwitz, and of these, murdered 

1,100,000; 

Whereas an estimated 960,000 Jews were systematically 

murdered in Auschwitz during the Holocaust; 

Whereas Auschwitz was also used to murder Poles, Roma, 

Soviet Prisoners of War, those helping to hide Jews and 

others the Nazis deemed inferior or that held different 

political views; 

Whereas victims of Auschwitz were systematically murdered 

in gas chambers and many were starved to death, tortured, and subjected to forced labor and criminal medical 

experiments; 
2 

•HRES 1044 EH 

Whereas the complex of the Auschwitz concentration and extermination camp has come to symbolize the mass murder and inhumanity committed during the Holocaust; 

Whereas the famous ‘‘Arbeit Macht Frei’’ (Work Will Make 

You Free) sign over the entrance to Auschwitz was stolen 

on December 18, 2009, and later recovered and the Polish police arrested the alleged culprits behind the theft; 

Whereas according to the Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism Report released by the Department of State’s Office 

of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, ‘‘[o]ver the last decade, United States embassies 

and consulates have reported an upsurge in anti-Semitism * * * and that [a]nti-Semitic crimes range from acts 

of violence, including terrorist attacks against Jews, to 

the desecration and destruction of Jewish property * * 

*’’; and 

Whereas in 2005, United Nations General Assembly resolution 60/7 established January 27, the anniversary of the 

liberation of Auschwitz, as International Holocaust Remembrance Day for the world to honor the victims of the 

Holocaust: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) commemorates the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz; 

(2) honors the victims of Auschwitz and other Nazi 

concentration and extermination camps, and all those 

who perished at the hands of the Nazis; 

(3) expresses gratitude to the Allied soldiers, underground fighters, and all those whose efforts helped de-
3 

•HRES 1044 EH 

feat the Nazi regime and liberate Auschwitz and other 

concentration and extermination camps during World 

War II; 

(4) reaffirms its commitment to enhance Holocaust 

education at home and abroad and to ensure that what 

happened in Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration 

and extermination camps is never allowed to happen 

again; and 

(5) urges all countries to enhance their efforts to 

combat bigotry, racism, intolerance, and anti-Semitism. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Federal Register: August 1, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 46886]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01au00-24]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.

========================================================================



[[Page 46886]]



COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 4, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-19493 Filed 7-28-00; 12:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----