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 Quarterly Report of NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2009, dated the date of this Certification (the Report), I, John J. Limbert, the President and the 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 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.



|                   |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    John J. Limbert               
|                   |  |  |  | John J. Limbert                      
|                   |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Noshir S. GOWADIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9177.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
----

(2004/C 70 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3153/03

by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   EU Info-Points

At the end of September 2003, the Commission informed the EU information centres that from January 2004, under the new Financial Regulation, overheads will no longer be subsidised. This endangers the very existence of the Info-Points and information carrefours that have until now undeniably served citizens, the European Parliament and not least the European Commission well. These Info-Points are essential in building trust between the people of Europe and the European Union institutions.

----
In Re Daniel Eric SALLEY, petitioner.

No. 18-7939.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Sheila J. HALOUSEK, petitioner, v. BANK OF AMERICA.

No. 18-7893.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District denied.
FREDERICK CHARLES DUTTON, JR.

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION TH EREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3099

Opinion filed October 6, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Frederick Charles Dutton, Jr., pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attor ney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm’n

,

807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

THOMAS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ.

, CONCUR.
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3590

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Joseph L. Young, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 12, 2007 Filed: October 17, 2007

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Joseph Young (Young) appeals the 235-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine ba se, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. Young’s c ounsel has moved to withdr aw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sentence is unreasonable.-2- We conclude Young’s advisory Guide lines imprisonment range was correctly determined by the district court, and his sentence at the bottom of that range is not unreasonable. SeeRita v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of reasonabl eness); United States v. Denton , 434 F.3d 1104, 1113 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding a within-G uidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable). The district court stated it ha d considered all of the statutory goals of sentencing, and it menti oned several specific factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Moreover, nothing in the record indicates the court overlooked a re levant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in imposing the sentence. SeeUnited States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating the factors used to review a sentence for reasonableness). After reviewing the record indepe ndently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9


       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               8,711
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                 325
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     1,579
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     4,079
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        106,489
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                     0
<LOANS>                                            162,055
<ALLOWANCE>                                          2,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     294,425
<DEPOSITS>                                         239,069
<SHORT-TERM>                                         6,534
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  4,280
<LONG-TERM>                                         19,278
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             8,994
<OTHER-SE>                                          16,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                     294,425
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      3,808
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    1,539
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                        80
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     5,427
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   2,409
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,918
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                2,509
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                            0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                     (21)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      2,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        828
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                             828
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           653
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        8.19
<LOANS-NON>                                            744
<LOANS-PAST>                                           156
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     2,709
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                          138
<RECOVERIES>                                            40
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    2,611
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 2,243
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                368
        


</TABLE>
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER

     THIS  SECOND  AMENDMENT  TO  AGREEMENT  AND  PLAN OF  MERGER,  dated  as of
September  16,1999  is among  FUSION  NETWORKS,  INC.,  a  Delaware  corporation
("Fusion"),   IDM  ENVIRONMENTAL   CORP.,  a  New  Jersey  corporation  ("IDM"),
IDM/FUSION  HOLDINGS,  INC.,  a Delaware  corporation  ("Parent"),  and  IDM/FNI
ACQUISITION  CORPORATION,  a  Delaware  corporation  and a direct  wholly  owned
subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger Subsidiary").

     WHEREAS,  the parties  hereto  entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated August 18, 1999 (the  "Agreement")  and a First Amendment to Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated August 30, 1999 (the "First Amendment").  Capitalized terms
used and not  otherwise  defined  herein shall have the meaning set forth in the
Agreement.

     WHEREAS,  the parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement in the following
respects.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  for good and  valuable  consideration,  the  receipt  and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follow:

     1.  Amendment of Section  6.2.  Section  6.2(b) of the  Agreement is hereby
deleted in its entirety.

     2. Amendment to Section 6.6.  Section 6.6 of the Agreement is amended to an
increase in the post-closing board of directors from five persons to six persons
and the  reference  appearing  therein  to  "decrease  the size of its  board of
directors to five  persons" is hereby  deleted and replaced  with  "increase the
size of its board of directors to six persons."

     3.  Ratification of Remaining  Terms.  Except as amended hereby,  all other
terms of the  Agreement  and First  Amendment  shall  remain  in full  force and
effect.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  each of the parties has caused this  Amendment  to be
executed on its behalf on the day and year first above written.

IDM ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.                    IDM/FNI ACQUISITION CORPORATION

By:   /S/ JOEL FREEDMAN                    By:   /S/ JOEL FREEDMAN
     ------------------------                 ---------------------------
Name: Joel Freedman                        Name: Joel Freedman
Title:President and                        Title:President and
      Chief Executive Officer                    Chief Executive Officer

IDM/FUSION HOLDINGS, INC.                  FUSION NETWORKS, INC.

By:   /S/ JOEL FREEDMAN                    By:  /S/ HERNANDO BAHAMON
     ------------------------                 ---------------------------
Name: Joel Freedman                        Name: Hernando Bahamon
Title:President and                        Title:President and
      Chief Executive Officer                    Chief Executive Officer
Colin SHILLINGLAW, petitioner, v. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, et al.;

Colin Shillinglaw, petitioner, v. Baylor University, et al.

No. 18-1175.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas denied.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-41,991-02

EX P ARTE MANSOME P OWERS, Ap plicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CCC-18- 15235A IN THE 52ND DISTRICT COURT

F ROM CORYELL COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was co n v i ct ed of assault on a

corr ectional of

fice r and se ntence d to four year s’ imprisonment. Applicant contends his sentenc e should hav e discharg ed on Dec ember 1, 2018. The trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusions o f law and deter mined that Applicant’s sentenc e discharg es on Fe bruar

y 19, 2019, and that he is not being unlawfully held. This discharg e date is not consistent, howeve r, with the pre -sentenc e cr edit in the judgme nt. Applicant has alleged fa cts that, if true, might entitle to relief

. In these circ umstances,2

additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the tria l court is the appr opriate f orum for f

indings of f

act. The trial court shall order the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice’s Offic e of the Gene ral Counsel to file a sec ond aff idavit stating whe ther Applica nt’s Fe bruar

y 19, 2019 discharg e date is

corr ect g iven the pre- sentenc e cre dit in the judgme nt. The trial court may also order depositions, interrog atories or a hear ing. I f the tri al co u rt elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s discharg e date is corr ect based on the pre- sentenc e cre dit in the judgme nt. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applica

nt’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 15 day s of this order

. A supplemental t ra n s cr i p t containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwa rded to this Court within 30 day s of the date of this order

. Any extensions of time must be reque sted by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: J anuar

y 30, 2019 Do not publish
Christopher YOUNG, petitioner, v. Michael M. KRAUS, et al.

No. 18-7807.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-11137

Summary Calendar

FORREST DESMIT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALLAS FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:11-CV-360

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Forrest DeSmit sued his employer under various theories that generally

alleged employment discrimination. In a thorough and careful memorandum

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 25, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-11137 Document: 00511835490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2012
No. 11-11137

opinion, the district court dismissed all claims as lacking merit.

DeSmit, pro se as in the district court, appeals but does not explain how,

in his view, the district court erred. The failure to brief is fatal to any claim. 

“Because [the plaintiff] has failed to brief any issue, his appeal is frivolous

and is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.” Hawkins v. Woods, No. 11-10731, 2012

U.S. App. LEXIS 4189, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2012) (per curiam).

This appeal, likewise,is frivolous and subject to dismissal under Rule 42.2. 

Even if we were to consider the correctness of the judgment, we would affirm on

the basis of the district court’s convincing discussion of the issues raised in that

court.

The appeal is DISMISSED.

2

Case: 11-11137 Document: 00511835490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2012
In Re Henry Lee BRYANT, petitioner.

No. 18-8099.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1436

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 15, 1999

Mr. BALLENGER (for himself, Mr. HALL of Texas, and Mr. STENHOLM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

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

3 SECTION 1. STANDARDS.

4 Section 6(b)(2) of the Occupational Safety and

5 Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C 655(b)(2)) is amended by

6 inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘‘The notice

7 in the Federal Register shall include identification of the

8 specific industry or industries to which the standard, to

9 be promulgated under the rule, will apply. In promul10 gating a standard, the Secretary shall ensure that the

11 standard, as applicable to each such industry, is based
2

•HR 1436 IH

1 upon an assessment of the risks to workers in such indus2 try from the hazard which is the subject of the standard,

3 the range of estimates and the best estimate of the quan4 tifiable and nonquantifiable benefits of the standard in

5 each such industry, and an analysis of the costs likely to

6 occur in each such industry as a result of compliance with

7 the standard. To the extent that information is not avail8 able on the specific risks to workers in any such industry,

9 the Secretary may determine risks and benefits on infor10 mation from similar industries, operations, or processes.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 21.1



SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF DOMINOS PIZZA, INC.



|                                                    |  |            
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------
|Dominos, Inc.                                      |  | Delaware   
|Dominos Pizza LLC                                  |  | Michigan   
|Dominos Franchise Holding Co.                      |  | Michigan   
|Dominos Pizza PMC, Inc.                            |  | Michigan   
|Dominos Pizza International, Inc.                  |  | Delaware   
|Dominos Pizza International Payroll Services, Inc. |  | Florida    
|Dominos Pizza NS Co.                               |  | Canada     
|Dominos Pizza of France S.A.S.                     |  | France     
|Dutch Pizza Beheer B.V.                             |  | Netherlands
Gregory Frank SPEROW, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8183.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 416/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 416 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 631 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 416

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 631 December 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 416/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Supplement 2020/10 (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 416/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Supplement 2020/10 (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

```

----

Updated December 2, 2011
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 30, 2024

NO. 03-24-00332-CV

K. W., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on May 1, 2024. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial 

court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Rafael Gomez URANGA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8238.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
James FORNEY, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-7988.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
Felton Bernard GREEN, petitioner, v. Denise McGILL-JOHNSTON, et al.

No. 17-7345.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
David Lee WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 18-7422.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.