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 theQuarterly Report of Cost-U-Less, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 25, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Jeffrey Meder,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)         The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)         The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: November 8, 2005

 

 

|   |   | /s/   J. Jeffrey Meder                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   | J. Jeffrey Meder                      |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

| *.* |
|-----|
SELF-INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, INC., petitioner, v. Rick SNYDER, Governor of Michigan, et al.

No. 16-593.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
1038.

#### Caldwell *v.*Campbell.

Certiorari, from Decatur superior court — Judge Spence. February 10, 1908.

Submitted April 22,

Decided May 7, 1908.

*B. 8. Longley,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bicketson & Hale, Dasher & Parks,*contra.

Powell, J.

The plaintiff, an insurance agent, took from the defendant an application for insurance, in which the amount of the premium was left blank. He took, however, a note for the first premium, in a specified amount. The policy, when delivered to the applicant, recited a slightly larger sum as the annual premium, but acknowledged receipt of the first premium. The insured kept the policy, never offered to return it, and made no objection, until after the note matured. *Beld,*that a verdict against the defendant for the amount of the note was proper. *Jones*v. *Gilbert,*93 *Ga.*607 (20 S. E. 48); *Leigh*v. *Brown,*99 *Ga.*258 (25 S. E. 621) ; *Johnson*v. *White,*120 *Ga.*1010 (48 S. E. 426) ; *Mass. Benefit Life Asso.*v. *Robinson,*104 *Ga.*256(4), (30 S. E. 918, 42 L. R. A. 261). *Judgment affirmed.*
Alejandro VALENCIA, aka Pablo Villanueva-Acosta, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7226.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Justin H. BELNAVIS, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 16-9402.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 19, 2021

NO. 03

- 21

- 00050

- CV

The State of Texas , Appellant

v.

R. B. R. , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMI TH

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l c ourt on January 5, 2021

. The parties

have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion , the Court agrees

that the motion should be granted . Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismiss es the

appeal

. The appellant shal l pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the

court below.
Gilbert L. LANE, petitioner, v. Brad CAIN, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution.

No. 16-6025.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
11-01212

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David Plank <tuscademe@yahoo.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 2:51 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

David Plank

RR2

New Milford, PA 18834
Arlen FOSTER, et ux., petitioners, v. Thomas J. VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture.

No. 16-186.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John F. Fisbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

 

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:  July 15, 2008 | By: /s/ John F. Fisbeck   |
|----------------------|--------------------------------|

|   | John F. Fisbeck, |
|--------|------------------|

Chief Executive Officer
1154.

#### WALDEN *et al. v.*DOWNING COMPANY.

1. “The purchaser of a bill, note or other negotiable security, transferable by delivery, who takes it before it is due, from one who himself has no title, bona fide and for value, acquires a good title, *field,*farther, that such title is not defeated by the want of such caution in the purchase as a careful and prudent man would exercise in the cqnduet of his affairs, or by gross negligence, but that it may be defeated by mala fides in the purchase, and that mala fides consists in notice, actual or constructive, of the fact that the security is not the property of the person who offers it, and a privaty [privity] with or participation in a fraud upon the true owner.” *Matthews*v. *Poythress,*4 *Ga.*287 (4) ; *Bealle*v. *Southern Bank of Ga.,*57 *Ga.*274; *Thomas*v. *Kinsey,*8 *Ga.*430; *Moye*V. *Waters,*51 *Ga.*13; Shaw *v.*R. Co., 101 U. S. 564 (25 L. ed. 892).

2. “Possession alone of a security negotiable by delivery before due, is presumptive evidence of title thereto; but when such security is proven to have been stolen or otherwise appropriated in fraud of the rights of the owner, then the onus is upon the possessor to show that he took it bona fide and for value; and upon his showing that, then the owner must show mala fides — that is, that the possessor has notice, actual or constructive, of the title of the true owner.” *Merchants’ Bank*v. *Trustees,*62 *Ga.*272 (4).

3. One who takes a negotiable instrument as collateral security for a pre-existing debt is a purchaser thereof, within the purview of the *535foregoing rule. *Gibson*v. *Connor,*3 *Ga.*47; *Kaiser*v. *United States Bank,*99 *Ga.*258 (25 S. E. 620).

Complaint, from city court of Sandersville — Judge Jordan. March *25,*1908.

Argued July 2,

Decided July *25,*1908.

*T.*W. *Hardwick, A. R. Wright, W. E. Armistead,*for plaintiff in error. *Evans & Evans, Bennet & Conyers,*contra.

Powell, J.

The case is controlled by the principles and authorities cited in the headnotes. The ease as presented here is, that Mrs. Walden, for valuable consideration, executed a negotiable promissory note to her daughter Mrs. Thomas, who indorsed it in blank and deposited it with her husband for safe-keeping. A partner in business of Mr. Thomas, in some manner, without the consent of Mrs. Thomas, secured possession of the note, again indorsed it in blank, and transferred' it to the Downing Company, as collateral security for a pre-existing debt which he owed them. The evidence upon the question of bona tides of the Downing Company was sufficient, prima facie, to carry the burden resting upon them, under the principles stated in the second headnote. The evidence of the defendant on this subject, including that offered, but rejected by the court, was not sufficient to overcome this prima facie case. On this point see Shaw *v.*R. Co., 101 U. S. 564 (25 L. ed. 892). *Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2010080EN.01002501.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2010 — PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH v OHIM (SupplementPack)

(Case T-113/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community word mark SupplementPack - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 80/43

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: K. Mende, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 996/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SupplementPack as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

1

---
Jimmy James JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6848.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6462

JEFF D. GOSNELL, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus DOUG MITCHELL, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cv-00108) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeff D. Gosnell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jeff D. Gosnell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gosnell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 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. DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

         I, James H. Tate, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Thermadyne Holdings Corporation (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September
30, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  November 14, 2002

                                        /s/      James H. Tate
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        James H. Tate
                                        Senior Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer of the
                                        Company
# C_2011038EN.01001902.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/19

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — Angelo Sánchez v Council

(Case F-67/09) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Special leave - Serious illness of a parent - Method of calculating the number of days of' leave where several parents seriously ill)

2011/C 38/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nicolás Angelo Sánchez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Zieleśkiewicz, M. Bauer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the defendant’s decisions refusing applications for special leave made by the applicant because of the serious illness of his parents.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the Council of the European Union of 8 October 2008 and 8 December 2008 refusing the applications for special leave made by the Mr Angelo Sánchez; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the Council of the European Union of 8 October 2008 and 8 December 2008 refusing the applications for special leave made by the Mr Angelo Sánchez;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009, p. 43.

1

---
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3680 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 415 North Main Street in Henning, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Paula Croom Robinson and Judy Spray 

Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3680 EH

1 SECTION 1. PAULA CROOM ROBINSON AND JUDY SPRAY 

2 MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located 415 North Main Street in Henning, 

5 Tennessee, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Paula 

6 Croom Robinson and Judy Spray Memorial Post Office 

7 Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Paula Croom Robin12 son and Judy Spray Memorial Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 30, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3680 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuilding’’. inson and Judy Spray Memorial Post Office Henning, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Paula Croom Rob- al Service located at 415 North Main Street in
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7574

ANDREW WINDSOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NASH W. SCHOTT, A.U.S.A.; DREWRY B. HUTCHESON,

JR., Esquire,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-516-3)

Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Windsor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Windsor v. Schott, No. CA-97-516-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29,

1997). 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
Exhibit 32.1

Certifications of Periodic Report by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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 Avatech Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, 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
for the periods reflected therein.



|                   |  |                                                     
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2009 |  | /s/ George M. Davis                                 
|                   |  | George M. Davis                                     
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer                             
|                   | 
|                   |  | /s/ Lawrence Rychlak                                
|                   |  | Lawrence Rychlak                                    
|                   |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2010346EN.01004002.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2010 — Reali v Commission

(Case T-65/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment - Classification in grade - Experience - Qualifications - Equivalence)

2010/C 346/79

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Enzo Reali (Florence, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008, in Case F-136/06 Reali v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Reali

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Enzo Reali to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Enzo Reali to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.

1

---
Anthony TAFOYA, petitioner, v. COLORADO, et al.

No. 15-9383.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
II-00826

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jeff Roth <j eff@focusedaudio, com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:04 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Jeff Roth

6991 Orchard Station Road

sebastopol, CA 95472