alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**AMERICAN RESTAURANTGROUP, INC.**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

Pursuant tothe requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify as follows:

 

1.                                       RalphS. Roberts is the Chief Executive Officer of American Restaurant Group, Inc.(the “Company”).

 

2.                                       WilliamG. Taves is the Chief Financial Officer of the Company.

 

3.                                       Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that:

 

(A)                              TheCompany’s Form 10-Q/A accompanying this Certification, in the form filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the“Exchange Act”); and

 

(B)                                Theinformation in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: | March 28, 2003                            |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                      |
|   |                                      |
|   | /s/ Ralph S. Roberts                      |   |
|   | Ralph S. Roberts  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                      |
|   |                                      |
|   | /s/ William G. Taves                      |   |
|   | William G. Taves  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# C_2010080EN.01002202.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/22

---

Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. KG against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case T-2/09: Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-73/10 P)

2010/C 80/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. KG (represented by: A. Rinne, Rechtsanwalt, S. Kon, Solicitor, C. Humpe, Solicitor, C. Vajda QC)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Order of the CFI in Case T- 2/09 dated 30 November 2009; and |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Order of the CFI in Case T- 2/09 dated 30 November 2009; and

| — | declare Weichert's application for annulment in Case T-2/09 admissible and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on Weichert's claims seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 15 October 2008 (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) — in so far as it relates to Weichert, or |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Weichert's application for annulment in Case T-2/09 admissible and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on Weichert's claims seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 15 October 2008 (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) — in so far as it relates to Weichert, or

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the admissibility of Weichert's application for annulment in Case T-2/09. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the admissibility of Weichert's application for annulment in Case T-2/09.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the CFI erred in law by declaring the application inadmissible on the basis that there could only be a derogation from the application of the Community rules on procedural time limits where the circumstances are either unforeseeable or amount to force majeure. It is submitted that such an approach is unduly narrow and fails to take any, or any proper account, of the importance of the right of access to a court in criminal proceedings, the principle of legality in criminal proceedings, and principle of proportionality, and the overriding need to avoid an unjust result.

---
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 Quarterly Report of PW Eagle, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jerry A. Dukes, 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; 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: August 14, 2006



/s/ Jerry A. DukesJerry A. DukesChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONSI, Patrick D. Matthews, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of PBS Holding, Inc, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10KSB of PBS Holding, Inc;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

May 14, 2007

/s/ Patrick D. Matthews

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer

PBS Holding, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             193
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   193
<PP&E>                                           27000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4525
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  215689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3702
<OTHER-SE>                                      209487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    215689
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 21011
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21011)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (21011)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21011)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
# C_2010317EN.01004702.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Da Silva Pinto Branco v Court of Justice

(Case F-52/09) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Probationary official - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Rights of the defence - Evaluation of abilities - Judicial review)

2010/C 317/83

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Delfina Da Silva Pinto Branco (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Erniquin and C. Defago, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice (represented by: A.V. Placco, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant. Next, application for the applicant to be established as an official or to be reinstated in her post as a probationary official. Lastly, application for damages for non-pecuniary losses suffered

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mrs Da Silva Pinto Branco to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mrs Da Silva Pinto Branco to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10/10/2009, p. 16.

1

---
Bernard KELLY, petitioner, v. Tony TRIERWEILER, Warden.

No. 17-8062.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2011252EN.01001103.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/11

---

Order of the Court of 24 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria)) — proceedings brought by projektart Errichtungsgesellschaft mbH, Eva Maria Pepic, Herbert Hilbe

(Case C-476/10) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Free movement of capital - Article 40 of and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement - Purchase by nationals of the Principality of Liechtenstein of a secondary residence in the Land of Vorarlberg (Austria) - Procedure of prior authorisation - Admissibility)

2011/C 252/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Austria)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

projektart Errichtungsgesellschaft mbH, Eva Maria Pepic, Herbert Hilbe

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg — Interpretation of Article 6(4) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5) — Purchase of a secondary residence, situated in a Member State of the European Union, by nationals of a non-Member State, party to the European Economic Area Agreement (Liechtenstein) — National rules of that Member State making such purchases subject to an authorisation procedure

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, on the basis of Article 6(4) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (article repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), prohibits a national of the Principality of Liechtenstein from purchasing a secondary residence situated in a Member State of the European Union, and therefore national authorities are required not to apply that national legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          44,477
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,940
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    494,514
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,533,723
<ALLOWANCE>                                     14,414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,186,308
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,471,956
<SHORT-TERM>                                   292,640
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             23,445
<LONG-TERM>                                    222,570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,110
<OTHER-SE>                                     156,587
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,186,308
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 94,785
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               28,905
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   641
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               124,331
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              47,154
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,774
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           55,557
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,520
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 515
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 48,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,918
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      17,918
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,819
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.89
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.67
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,045
<LOANS-PAST>                                     8,735
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   476
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,525
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                15,410
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,926
<RECOVERIES>                                       410
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               14,414
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            14,414
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4018 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4018

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide that the amount of time that an elderly offender must serve 
before being eligible for placement in home detention is to be reduced 
  by the amount of good time credits earned by the prisoner, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. GOOD CONDUCT TIME CREDITS FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY NONVIOLENT 
              OFFENDERS.

    Section 231(g)(5)(A)(ii) of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (34 
U.S.C. 60541(g)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``to which the 
offender was sentenced'' and inserting ``reduced by any credit toward 
the service of the prisoner's sentence awarded under section 3624(b) of 
title 18, United States Code''.

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 4018

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To provide that the amount of time that an elderly offender must serve 
before being eligible for placement in home detention is to be reduced 
  by the amount of good time credits earned by the prisoner, and for 
                            other purposes.
```
Randy A. THOMAS, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 17-5117.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Summit County denied.
Grayland WINBUSH, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-5017.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
# C_2011298EN.01000702.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-133/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/81/EC - Transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings - Undertaking subject to the obligation of keeping separate accounts - Non-transposition within the period prescribed)

2011/C 298/11

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ 2005 L 312, p. 47)

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 comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.2** **CERTIFICATION    OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant    to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the    undersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the “Company”)    hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Annual Report on    Form 10-K/A    of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006    (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company. /s/  Courtney    A. Brower    Courtney A. Brower
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
- - - - - - - -

NO. 20-0646 IN RE THE COMMITMENT OF ANTHONY HENDERSON § § § § § § Dallas County, 5th District.
September 25, 2020 Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

 I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under the date shown. WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this the 29th day of October, 2020.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk