alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In
connection with the Annual Report of DAG Media, Inc. on Form 10-KSB, for the
period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Assaf Ran, Chief Executive
Officer of DAG Media, 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 DAG Media, Inc. Date:
  March 14, 2008
/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.
Rashad WOODSIDE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6377.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2019246EN.01003301.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/33

---

Action brought on 20 May 2019 — BRF Singapore Foods v EUIPO — Tipiak (SADIA)

(Case T-310/19)

(2019/C 246/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BRF Singapore Foods Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: C. Mateu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tipiak (Saint-Aignan de Grand Lieu, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SADIA — Application for registration No 12 084 273

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 in Case R 1857/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order Tipiak to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Tipiak to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of general EU principles of the sound administration and equal treatment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of general EU principles of the sound administration and equal treatment;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1447 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1447

To provide for the coordinated end-to-end testing and disclosure of the 
 readiness of certain Federal and non-Federal computer systems for the 
                      year 2000 computer problem.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 1999

  Mr. Ford (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Cummings, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. 
Meeks of New York, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, and Ms. 
 Millender-McDonald) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                      to the Committee on Science

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the coordinated end-to-end testing and disclosure of the 
 readiness of certain Federal and non-Federal computer systems for the 
                      year 2000 computer problem.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Y2K Test Day Act''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL TEST DAY.

    All Federal agencies that have responsibilities with respect to 
health, safety, payments to individuals, delivery of services to 
consumers, and national defense issues shall participate, and all 
State, local, or private agencies or organizations having 
responsibilities with respect to those issues shall be encouraged to 
participate, in a National Y2K Test Day on July 1, 1999, to test the 
readiness of mission critical computer systems in those areas for 
January 1, 2000, and to provide advance notice of problems that may 
occur on such day with such computer systems, with the interoperation 
of such computer systems, or both.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL DISCLOSURE DAY.

    All Federal agencies that have responsibilities with respect to 
health, safety, payments to individuals, delivery of services to 
consumers, and national defense issues shall participate, and all 
State, local, or private agencies or organizations having 
responsibilities with respect to those issues shall be encouraged to 
participate, in a National Y2K Disclosure Day on August 16, 1999, to 
disclose the readiness of mission critical computer systems in those 
areas for January 1, 2000, and to disclose advance notice of problems 
that may occur on such day with such computer systems, with the 
interoperation of such computer systems, or both.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered August 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00370-CV

TIERONE CONVERGED NETWORKS, INC., Appellant

V.

LAVON WATER SUPPLY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 005-00055-2013

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s August 15, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a reply 

brief. Appellant shall file its reply brief on or before August 30, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of EDGAR
Online, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Price, 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 my knowledge:

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 results
of operations of the Company.

|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: April 30, 2012 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    DAVID J.
PRICE
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | David J. Price         
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019131EN.01001501.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — NK

(Case C-231/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 - Obligation to use a tachograph - Exception for vehicles used for the carriage of live animals from farms to local markets and vice versa or from markets to local slaughterhouses)

(2019/C 131/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

NK

Other parties to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg, Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt Oldenburg

Operative part of the judgment

The term ‘local markets’ in Article 13(1)(p) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014, must be interpreted as referring neither to the transaction carried out between a livestock wholesaler and a farmer nor to the livestock wholesaler himself, so that the exception provided for in that provision cannot be extended to include vehicles transporting live animals directly from farms to local slaughterhouses.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---
Roderick BLACK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8586.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,171
<SECURITIES>                                    46,872
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,792
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,840
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,408
<PP&E>                                       2,406,456
<DEPRECIATION>                                 679,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,876,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          239,869
<BONDS>                                        862,239
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     513,564
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,876,174
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,517
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,966
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,966
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,966
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59



</TABLE>
Colleen M. BRADLEY, petitioner, v. WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY OF the PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, et al.

No. 17-1677.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24149-24150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08550]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-820-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc., Florida Power & Light 
Company.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release 
Regulations, et al. of Southern Company Services, Inc. et al.
    Filed Date: 4/13/22.
    Accession Number: 20220413-5238.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/25/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1187-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: EGTS--Rate Case 45-Day Update Filing to 
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220414-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-800-001.

[[Page 24150]]

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to Colonial and Vitol Agmt 
Filing--Metadata Update to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220414-5204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 15, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08550 Filed 4-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Alexander BANNERMAN, petitioner, v. Richard MILLER, Warden, et al.

No. 17-6663.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 332.1

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 Boundaries Capital, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending April 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Conrad Clemiss, President of the Company, and I, David Derby, 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:

|1. | The Report duly complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.



|/s/ Conrad Clemiss
___________________________ Conrad
Clemiss, PresidentNovember
18December 31, 2003 | /s/ David Derby 	 	 ___________________________ David Derby, Chief Financial OfficerNovember
      18December 31, 2003
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

t1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145686

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145686

COA: 301531

Muskegon CC: 10

- 059424

- FH

DARAY SHONTE HARVEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Harry Mund, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of Lapis  Technologies,
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;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining  disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

      (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 is made
known to us by others,  particularly  during the period in which this  report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's  disclosure
controls 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 most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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.

November 14, 2005

/s/ Harry Mund
------------------------
Harry Mund
Chief Executive Officer
Thomas REYNOLDS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18M132.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with Appendix B available for the public record granted.
#### JOHN A. NEWSTROM v. SWAN J. TURNBLAD.1

May 14, 1909.

Nos. 16,134—(51).

Action in Deceit — Complaint.

Tlie complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in deceit, and it does not appear from tlie complaint that the cause of aetioji was barred by the statute of limitations.

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $12,500 damages caused by defendant’s fraudulent representations. Erom an order, Dickinson, J., overruling defendant’s demurrer to the complaint, he appealed.

Affirmed.

*Lars M. Band*and *Norton M.*Cross, for appellant.

*II. E. Fryberger,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 121 N. W. 236.

Lewis, J.

The trial court overruled appellant’s demurrer to the complaint upon the grounds (1) that the facts therein stated do not constitute a cause of action, and (2) that it appears from the complaint that the alleged cause of action set forth in the complaint, is barred by the statute of limitations.

The complaint sets forth, in substance, the following facts: That during 1886 the Swedish-American Publishing Company, a corporation, issued to respondent two shares of its capital stock, for which he paid ten dollars each, being the par value thereof; that such eor*59poration was engaged in publishing a newspaper called the “Svenslca Amerikanska Posten;” that from the time of the purchase of the stock until 1901 appellant was the managing director of the company; that some time during 1901, the exact date being unknown to respondent, appellant fraudulently represented to respondent that the stock which he had purchased was worthless, and that the company was in debt; that respondent was ignorant of the true condition of affairs, had no knowledge that the corporation had at that time disposed of the newspaper, and, having no knowledge of the true facts, relied upon the representations of appellant that the same was of no value, and transferred it to appellant at the price for which he bought the same; that such shares of stock were worth at that time at least the sum of $7,500; that by reason of the fact that respondent had parted with his stock he was damaged in the sum of $12,500.

In addition to the foregoing, it is alleged that on or about June 15, 1908, and, immediately after discovering the facts constituting the fraud, respondent offered to restore the consideration to appellant, rescinded the sale, and duly demanded that appellant return the stock certificate, which he refused to do; that appellant has converted the shares of stock to his own use; and that it will be useless to make any further demand for their return.

Making due allowance for surplusage and unnecessary details, the complaint fairly states a cause of action in deceit, as defined in I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co., 94 Minn. 331, 102 N. W. 728. It appears from the complaint that respondent commenced the action within a reasonable time after discovering the fraud, and it does not appear that he was guilty of laches, or ratified the sale, and the facts do not justify the conclusion that the statute of limitations had run at the time of the commencement of the action.

Affirmed.