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













CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Yearly Report of Sierra Resource Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Rod Martin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and




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







Registrant



Date: April 14, 2012

Sierra Resource Group, Inc.



By: /s/ J. Rod MartinJ. Rod MartinChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report of Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical Company, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Weibing Lu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d), as applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.





/s/ Weibing LuWeibing Lu

Chief Executive Officer

April 11, 2011





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 32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the annual report of Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical Company, (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Erna Gao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
      date
      hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
      States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d), as
      applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company at the dates
      and
      for the periods indicated.





/s/
                Erna GaoErna
                GaoChief
                Financial OfficerApril
                2, 2008




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.
**Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2010 – Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)**

**(Case T-15/09)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 32, 37, 44)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2008 (Case R 70/2006‐4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign EURO AUTOMATIC CASH as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Européenne de traitement de l’Information (Euro-Information) |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42 – application No 4114864 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 November 2008 (Case R 70/2006-4); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Européenne de traitement de l'information (Euro-Information) to pay one fifth of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders OHIM to pay the essential costs incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. |
Exhibit 10.1

 

FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE, INC.

 

Summary of Director Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Directors of Five Star Quality Care, Inc. (the “Company”) for services as Directors, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Directors.

 

·                  Each Independent Director receives an annual fee of $40,000, plus a fee of $1,250 for each meeting attended.  Up to two $1,250 fees are payable if more than one board and board committee meetings are held on the same date.

 

·                  The chairpersons of the quality of care committee, audit committee, compensation committee and nominating and governance committee receive an additional annual fee of $20,000, $20,000, $10,000 and $10,000, respectively.

 

·                  Each Director receives a grant of 10,000 shares of the Company’s common stock on the date of the first board meeting following each annual meeting of stockholders (or, for Directors who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended).

 

·                  The Company generally reimburses all Directors for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Directors and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain continuing education programs.
**Exhibit 15(a).1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-12958, No. 333-11288, No. 333-118619 and No. 333-123666 on Form S-8 and No. 333-145834 on Form F-3 of CDC Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated June 20, 2006 (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement of the previously issued consolidated financial statements because of correction of misstatements, and our report is dated June 29, 2007 as to the effects ofthis restatement), relating to the consolidated financial statements of China.com Inc. and its subsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A Amendment No. 1 of CDC Corporationand subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu 

Hong Kong 

September 9, 2008
Daniel Clate ACKER, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-7045.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
1

6351-01-P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, July 26, 2023.

PLACE: CFTC Headquarters Conference Center, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st 

Street, NW, Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“Commission” or “CFTC”) will hold this meeting to consider the following matters:

• Final Rule: Reporting and Information Requirements for Derivatives Clearing 

Organizations;

• Proposed Rule: Swap Confirmation Requirements for Swap Execution 

Facilities;

• Proposed Rule: Amendments to Provisions Common to Registered Entities;

and

• Proposed Rule: Amendments to Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps 

for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants (Seeded Funds and Money Market 

Funds).

The agenda for this meeting will be available to the public and posted on the 

Commission’s website at https://www.cftc.gov. Members of the public are free to attend 

the meeting in person, or have the option to listen by phone or view a live stream. 

Instructions for listening to the meeting by phone and connecting to the live video stream 

will be posted on the Commission’s website.
2

In the event that the time, date, or place of this meeting changes, an 

announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, or place of the meeting, will 

be posted on the Commission’s website.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Christopher Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5964.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Dated: July 19, 2023.

Christopher Kirkpatrick,

Secretary of the Commission.
# C_2012379EN.01000301.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Elenca Srl v Ministero dell’Interno

(Case C-385/10) (1)

1

(Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect - Internal liners in flues and chimney pipes - Lack of CE conformity marking - Marketing precluded)

2012/C 379/04

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elenca Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4(2), 5 and 6 of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12) — Products not covered by harmonised standards as provided for in the directive — National rules that preclude the marketing of plastic internal flue or chimney pipe linings not bearing EC marking

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions which automatically make the marketing of construction products, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, originating from another Member State, subject to the affixing of CE marking. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions which automatically make the marketing of construction products, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, originating from another Member State, subject to the affixing of CE marking.

| 2. | Articles 34 TFEU to 37 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national provisions which automatically make the marketing of construction products, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, originating from another Member State, subject to the affixing of CE marking. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 34 TFEU to 37 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national provisions which automatically make the marketing of construction products, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, originating from another Member State, subject to the affixing of CE marking.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-7287

DONIHUE CARR,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge.

(CR-93-16-N, CA-95-1217-2)

Submitted: October 7, 1997

Decided: November 17, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Donihue Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Donihue Carr appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). Carr contends that his

conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for using or carrying a firearm

during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense should be vacated

in light of Bailey v. United States, #6D 6D6D# U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 501

(1995), for insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction under

the "use" prong and for an erroneous jury instruction. We affirm.

The government properly conceded that under Bailey, Carr did not

"use" the firearm. Id. at 508 (holding that use requires active employment of the firearm). Our review of the record discloses, however,

that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that

Carr "carried" the firearm at issue, as carry is defined by this court in

United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 653 (4th Cir. 1997). See

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (providing standard).

Further, although the district court did not address specifically Carr's

jury instruction claim, we find that applying the rationale of United

States v. Hudgins, 120 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 1997), it is clear that the

jury found on sufficient evidence that Carr engaged in conduct constituting carrying of a firearm during and in relation to the drug trafficking offense. We therefore find that neither of these claims warrants

reversal of the district court's order.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Carr's § 2255

motion. 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

 2
# C_2010148EN.01003001.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Claro v OHIM — Telefónica (Claro)

(Case T-225/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community three-dimensional mark Claro - Earlier Community word mark CLARO - Inadmissibility of the appeal brought before the Board of Appeal - Articles 59 and 62 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 60 and 64 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

2010/C 148/53

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Claro, SA (São Paulo, Brazil) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Telefónica SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2009 (Case R 1079/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Telefónica, SA and BCP S/A

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Claro, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Claro, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.

1

---
John Taylor MORRIS, III, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-7631.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Darlin Janett HERNANDEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5052.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Santiago RIOS, petitioner, v. Scott LEWIS, Warden.

No. 17-7470.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Steven Stuart MARKS, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 16-9529.

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.
# C_2010011EN.01003701.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/37

---

Action brought on 17 November 2009 –Storck v OHIM — RAI (Radiotelevisione)

(Case T-462/09)

2010/C 11/68

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Rohr, P. Goldenbaum and T. Melchert, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI)(Rome, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8 September 2009 in Case R 1779/2008 4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8 September 2009 in Case R 1779/2008 4;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs;

| — | should there be an intervener in the proceedings, order the intervener to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

should there be an intervener in the proceedings, order the intervener to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: August Storck KG

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark “Ragolizia” for good in Class 30 (Application No 5 201 835)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark No 4 771 762“FAVOLIZIA”

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as there is no likelihood of confusion of the opposing trade marks

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2011252EN.01000703.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/7

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 — Giampietro Torresan v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-5/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Word mark CANNABIS - Invalidity proceedings - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c))

2011/C 252/12

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Giampietro Torresan (represented by: G. Recher and R. Munarini, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto, acting as Agent), Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and R. Cartella, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-234/06 Torresan v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 517/2005-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG and Giampietro Torresan

Torresan

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Torresan is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Torresan is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.

1

---