alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1)   | The                Quarterly Report on form 10-QSB for the three and six months ended                June                30, 2004 (the “Form 10-QSB”) of the Company 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all                material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                January 12, 2007                               |         |         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|
|                                                                |         |
|  /s/                J. Scott Tomer                             |    |    |
| J.                Scott TomerChief                Executive Officer |         |         |

| Date:                January 12, 2007                              |         |         |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|
|                                                               |         |
|   /s/                John D. Clagg                       |    |    |
| John                D. ClaggChief                Financial Officer |    |         |

----
# C_2011269EN.01003803.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 1 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-455/10) (1)

1

2011/C 269/80

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification

Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act Of 2002

(Subsections (A) And (B) Of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers
of PolarityTE, Inc., (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal
year ended October 31, 2016 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | /s/
    Denver Lough                        
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Denver Lough, Chief Executive Officer       
| | (Principal Executive Officer)               
| |                                             
| | Dated: January 30, 2017                     
| |                                             
| | /s/
    John Stetson                        
| | John Stetson, Chief Financial Officer       
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
| |                                             
| | Dated: January 30, 2017
IPR LICENSING, INC., petitioner, v. ZTE CORPORATION, et al.

No. 17-159.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6986

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE BENNETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-94-189-6; CA-04-300-1) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 12, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: George Bennett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as successive. 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bennett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability. To the extent Bennett’s notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). 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
Patricia Ragland McGEHEE, et vir, petitioners, v. KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS.

No. 17-757.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Joshua David CHARTER, petitioner, UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7798.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.3


 





ALLONGE


 


This Allonge, dated as of June 7, 2018, shall be appended
to and made a part of that certain convertible promissory note (the “Note”), issued February 1, 2018 in the amount
of $200,000 by Nightfood Holdings, Inc. to Regal Consulting, LLC. Unless otherwise indicated, all capitalized terms shall have
the meaning given them in the Note.


		1.	Conditioned only upon the Borrower making a pre-payment of $100,000 (the “Special Prepayment”) on or before June
18, 2018: (i) the right of the Holder to convert the Note to the Borrower’s common stock is forever removed from the Note
and (ii) no prepayment penalty shall be charged with respect to the Special Prepayment; and (iii) the due date of the Note when
all remaining interest and principal shall be due is amended to be July 6, 2018 with no prepayment penalty due for payment on or
before such date.



		2.	Except as amended by this Allonge, the Note shall remain in full force and effect.



 


 


	NightFood Holdings, Inc.	 	Regal Consulting, LLC
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	By:	 
	 	Sean Folkson, CEO	 	 	Parker Mitchell, Manager
Robert William STONE, Jr., petitioner, v. MARYLAND.

No. 17-6902.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
Robert Maurice PARIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9557.

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_2011370EN.01001401.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-362/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/98/EC - Re-use of public sector information - Incorrect transposition of or failure to transpose certain articles within the period prescribed)

2011/C 370/21

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. La Pergola and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose into the Polish legal order Articles 2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10 and 11 of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose into the Polish legal order Articles 2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10 and 11 of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

1

---
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Board of Directors and Shareholders
Teche Holding Company
Franklin, Louisiana

We have audited the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheet of Teche Holding
Company and  subsidiary as of September 30, 2004,  and the related  consolidated
statements  of income,  stockholders'  equity and cash flows for each of the two
years in the period ended September 30, 2004. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted  our audits in  accordance  with  standards  of the Public  Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a
test basis,  evidence  supporting  the amounts and  disclosures in the financial
statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant  estimates  made by  management,  as well as evaluating  the overall
financial  statement  presentation.   We  believe  that  our  audits  provide  a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion,  such consolidated  financial  statements present fairly, in all
material  respects,   the  financial  position  of  Teche  Holding  Company  and
subsidiary as of September  30, 2004,  and the results of their  operations  and
their  cash flows for each of the two years in the period  ended  September  30,
2004, in conformity with accounting  principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
December 15, 2004
Exhibit 13(a)2

CERTIFICATION OF 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 Annual Report of CDC Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 20-F), I, Michael Latimore, chief financial officer of the Company, certify that:

(1) The Form 20-F 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: June 30, 2008    
|                       
|/s/ Michael Latimore   
|Michael Latimore       
|Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CDC Corporation and will be retained by CDC Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II-00053

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dana Knickerbocker <danastephen55@yahoo.com>

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 4:12 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.

Dana Knickerbocker

15049 32nd PL S

Seatac, WA 98188
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LENORIS DRUMWRIGHT, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-510

LT Case No. 2006-CF-006077-A-O

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Decision filed July 5, 2022

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County, 

Patricia Strowbridge, Judge.

Lenoris Drumwright, Crestview, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Marvin R. SPARROW.

No. D-2997.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Disbarment order entered.
Robert Antwain STANBACK, petitioner, v. Faye DANIELS.

No. 17-7926.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
II-00469

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Rowe Taro <howardatjanns@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 5:59 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.

Rowe Taro

1Blueberry Hill Rd

Raymond, NH 3077
EXHIBIT
32.1





WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of China 3C Group and its
subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned, Zhenggang Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company 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 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.




Dated:
      December 24, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Zhenggang WangName:
                  Zhenggang
      WangTitle:
                  Chief
      Executive Officer and Chairman (Principal Executive
    Officer)
Exhibit 13(a)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 Annual Report of CDC Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 20-F), I, Peter Yip, chief executive officer of the Company, certify that:

(1) The Form 20-F 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: June 30, 2008    
|                       
|/s/ Peter Yip          
|Peter Yip              
|Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CDC Corporation and will be retained by CDC Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2011089EN.01000302.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/3

---

Order of the Court of 23 November 2010 — Enercon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hasbro, Inc.

(Case C-204/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word mark ENERCON - Opposition of the proprietor of the word mark TRANSFORMERS ENERGON - Refusal to register - Likelihood of confusion)

2011/C 89/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Enercon GmbH (represented by: J. Mellor, Barrister, and R. Böhm, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), Hasbro, Inc.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2010 in Case T-472/07 Enercon v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘ENERCON’, for goods in Classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28 and 32, against Decision R 959/2006-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 25 October 2007, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the Opposition Division’s decision which refused registration of that mark in the context of the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘TRANSFORMERS ENERGON’, for goods in Classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30 and 32, and the unregistered marks ‘TRANSFORMERS ENERGON’ and ‘ENERGON’ used in the United Kingdom for similar goods — Infringement of Article 8(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Enercon

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Enercon GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Enercon GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

1

---