alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C.  SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Progreen Properties, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jan Telander, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (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.





/s/ Jan TelanderJan
      TelanderChief
      Executive Officerand
      Chief Financial Officer


July 29,
2010
# L_2005133EN.01000701.xml

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 133/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 133/7

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 164/2004

of 3 December 2004

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 148/2004 of 29 October 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 148/2004 of 29 October 2004 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the 29th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (2), as corrected by OJ L 216, 16.6.2004, p. 3 and OJ L 236, 7.7.2004, p. 18, is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the 29th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (2), as corrected by OJ L 216, 16.6.2004, p. 3 and OJ L 236, 7.7.2004, p. 18, is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 1 (Council Directive 67/548/EEC) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32004 L 0073: Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 (OJ L 152, 30.4.2004, p. 1), as corrected by OJ L 216, 16.6.2004, p. 3 and OJ L 236, 7.7.2004, p. 18.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32004 L 0073: Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 (OJ L 152, 30.4.2004, p. 1), as corrected by OJ L 216, 16.6.2004, p. 3 and OJ L 236, 7.7.2004, p. 18.’

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2004/73/EC, as corrected by OJ L 216, 16.6.2004, p. 3 and OJ L 236, 7.7.2004, p. 18, in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 4 December 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 3 December 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kjartan JÓHANNSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 102, 21.4.2005, p. 21.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 152, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Ryan C. BRIDGER, petitioner, v. Jason LEWIS, Warden.

No. 16-9180.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-129058,333-126360, 333-111841,333-111830, 333-38896, 333-61284,333-61278, 333-72704, and 333-89396 on Form S-8 ofour report dated March 31, 2005, March 31, 2006 as to the effects ofthe restatement discussed in Note 2 (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatementdiscussed in Note 2), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof ValueClick, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

Deloitte & ToucheLLP

Los Angeles, CaliforniaMarch 31, 2006

----
Brandi CHANNON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9236.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1231 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1231

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain National Forest 
     lands to Elko County, Nevada, for continued use as a cemetery.

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

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NATIONAL FOREST LANDS TO ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA, 
              FOR USE AS CEMETERY.

    (a) Requirement To Convey.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
convey, without consideration, to Elko County, Nevada, all right, 
title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property 
described in subsection (b).
    (b) Description of Property.--
      (1) In general.--The property referred to in subsection (a) 
    consists of: (A) a parcel of National Forest lands (including any 
    improvements thereon) in Elko County, Nevada, known as Jarbidge 
    Cemetery, consisting of approximately 2 acres within the following 
    described lands: NE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ NW\1/4\, S. 9 T. 46 N, R. 58 E., 
    MDB&M, which shall be used as a cemetery; and (B) the existing 
    bridge over the Jarbidge River that provides access to that parcel, 
    and the road from the bridge to the parcel as depicted on the map 
    entitled ``Elko County Road and Bridge Conveyance'' dated July 27, 
    1999.
        (2) Survey.--The exact acreage and legal description of the 
    property to be conveyed under subsection (a) shall be determined by 
    a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. As a condition of any 
    conveyance under this section, the Secretary shall require that the 
    cost of the survey shall be borne by the County.
    (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require 
such additional terms and conditions with respect to the conveyance 
under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect 
the interests of the United States, except that the Secretary may not 
retain for the United States any reversionary interest in property 
conveyed under this section.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF 
GEORGE FOREMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of George Foreman Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Seymour Holtzman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) 	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.

/s/ Seymour Holtzman		
Seymour Holtzman
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2006
Nathaniel JACKSON, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 18-7353.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Trumbull County denied.
Exhibit
32.1







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





I, Edward
R. DeStefano, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of New
Century Energy Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31,
2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of New Century Energy Corp.





By:/s/ Edward R.
DeStefano


Edward R.
DeStefano


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)





April  7,
2008
Michael R. SOLOMON, petitioner, v. DESERT HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, et al.

No. 17-1580.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two denied.
Martin DIEZ, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-9248.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration *139in light of *Wilson v. Sellers,* 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1188, 200 L.Ed.2d 530 (2018).
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 Manhattan Bridge Capital, Inc. on Form
10-K, for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Assaf Ran, Chief
Executive Officer of Manhattan Bridge Capital, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, 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 Manhattan Bridge
Capital, Inc. Date: March
 18, 2009
/s/ Assaf
 RanAssaf Ran(principal
 executive officer) *     A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 118

To designate the Federal building located at 300 East 8th Street in Austin,

Texas, as the ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1999

Mr. DOGGETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 300 East 8th

Street in Austin, Texas, as the ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 300 East 8th Street

5 in Austin, Texas, shall be known and designated as the

6 ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal
2

•HR 118 IH

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

2 a reference to the ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

Æ
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1199

To prohibit the expenditure of funds from the Land and Water Conservation

Fund for the creation of new National Wildlife Refuges without specific

authorization from Congress pursuant to a recommendation from the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service to create the refuge.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 18, 1999

Mr. POMBO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Resources

A BILL

To prohibit the expenditure of funds from the Land and

Water Conservation Fund for the creation of new National Wildlife Refuges without specific authorization

from Congress pursuant to a recommendation from the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service to create the

refuge.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Wildlife Refuge

5 Authorization Act’’.
2

•HR 1199 IH

1 SEC. 2. NEW REFUGES.

2 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds

3 may be expended from the Land and Water Conservation

4 Fund established by Public Law 88–578, for the creation

5 of a new refuge within the National Wildlife Refuge Sys6 tem without specific authorization from Congress pursu7 ant to recommendation from the United States Fish and

8 Wildlife Service, to create that new refuge.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

DANA HOCKENSMITH, § 

 § No. 591, 2014 

 Appellant Below, § 

 Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court 

 § of the State of Delaware in and 

 v. § for Kent County 

 § 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE § C.A. No. 14A-03-006 

APPEAL BOARD, § 

 § 

 Appellee Below, § 

 Appellee. § 

Submitted: November 12, 2014 

Decided: December 11, 2014 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, RIDGELY and VALIHURA, Justices. 

O R D E R 

 This 11th day of December 2014, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) On October 20, 2014, the appellant, Dana Hockensmith, filed a 

notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated and docketed on 

September 17, 2014, in an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment 

Insurance Appeal Board. On its face, the notice of appeal was untimely 

filed. Under title 10, section 148 of the Delaware Code and Supreme Court 

Rule 6(a)(i), the notice of appeal should have been filed on or before 
2 

October 17, 2014.1 To be effective, a notice of appeal must be received by 

the Office of the Clerk of this Court within thirty days after entry upon the 

docket of the order from which the appeal is taken.2

(2) On October 21, 2014, the Clerk issued a notice under Supreme 

Court Rule 29(b), directing Hockensmith to show cause why the appeal 

should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In her response to the notice, 

Hockensmith asserts that the appeal should not be dismissed because she 

filed the notice of appeal on October 20, 2014, within thirty days of 

September 20, 2014, the date she received the September 17, 2014 order. 

(3) “[T]he appellate jurisdiction of this [C]ourt rests wholly upon 

the perfecting of an appeal within the period of limitations fixed by law.”3

 

The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of an appeal cannot 

be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing the 

appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.4

 

1

See 10 Del. C. § 148 (“No appeal from a final judgment of the Superior Court in a civil 

action shall be received or entertained in the Supreme Court unless the . . . notice of 

appeal is duly filed in the office of the Clerk thereof within 30 days after the date of the 

judgment or decree.”); Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i) (providing that an appeal in a civil case 

must be filed within thirty days “after entry upon the docket of the judgment, order or 

decree from which the appeal is taken”). 

2

 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 

3

Fisher v. Biggs, 284 A.2d 117, 118 (Del. 1971). 

4 McMillan v. State, 2013 WL 5974110 (Del. Nov. 7, 2013) (citing Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 

362, 363 (Del. 1979)). 
3 

(4) In this case, Hockensmith does not contend, and the record does 

not reflect, that her failure to timely file the appeal is attributable to courtrelated personnel. The case does not fall within the exception to the general 

rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 

6 and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 

 /s/ Karen L. Valihura 

 Justice
Richard Earl SHERE, Jr., petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-6877.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             436
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   436
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,707
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                      (6,283)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       549
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   708
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (708)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-523-CR

KELLEY RENEE SCHMIDT	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Kelley Renee Schmidt appeals her sentence for possession of four or more, but less than 200, grams of a controlled substance, gamma hydroxybutyrate.  In a single point, appellant complains that the trial court should have set her motion for new trial for hearing and granted her a new trial because her four-year sentence is excessive. 

	Nothing in the record indicates that appellant presented her motion for new trial to the trial court by bringing the motion to the court’s attention in any way.2  Accordingly, appellant has forfeited her complaint that the trial court abused its discretion by not setting the motion for hearing.3

	Further, appellant did not raise her complaint of excessive punishment in her motion for new trial or elsewhere in the trial court.  Therefore, she has forfeited this complaint as well.4

	For these reasons, we overrule appellant’s point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	CAYCE, C.J.; HOLMAN and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 28, 2005
**Exhibit 10.66**

 

EXECUTION COPY 

 

FOURTH AMENDMENT 

TO 

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENTAGREEMENT 

 

This Fourth Amendment to Amended and RestatedEmployment Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated January ~~~~    ~~~~, 2005, and effective as of January 1, 2005, is entered into by and between St. John Knits, Inc., a Californiacorporation (“Company”), and Marie St. John Gray, an individual (“Executive”), and amends terms of that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of July 14, 1998, as amended, between the Company and Executive(the “1998 Agreement”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreement set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows (all capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the 1998 Agreement).

 

1. Section I.2 of the 1998 Agreement shall be deleted in itsentirety and replaced with the following: 

 

“I.2 Term. The employment of Executive by the Company under the terms and conditions of this Agreement will commence as of January 1, 1998 and will continue for a period of (8) years (until December 31, 2005) unless renewed orterminated sooner in accordance with the provisions hereof.” 

 

2. All other terms and conditions of the 1998 Agreement shall remain the same. 

 

3. All the provisions contained in Article V of the 1998 Agreement are incorporated into this Amendment by this reference. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.
Yosnel BONET, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7152.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
January 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 134445 Maura D. Corrigan 134446 Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices
ERIC A. BRAVERMAN, Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Patricia Swann, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 134445, 134446 v COA: 264029, 264091 Wayne CC: 05-502345-NH GARDEN CITY HOSPIT AL, a/k/a GARDEN CITY HOSPITAL, OSTEOPATHIC, Defendant, and

JOHN R. SCHAIRER, D.O., GARY YASHINSKY, M.D., ABHI NA V. RAINA, M.D., and PROVIDENCE HOSPIT AL AND MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by Michigan Association for Justice for extension of the time for filing their brief amicus curiae is considered and it is GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
January 10, 2008
Clerk