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 B&GFoods, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 3,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, David L. Wenner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, andI, Robert C. Cantwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  David L. Wenner     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| David L. Wenner          |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| October 27, 2009    |
|                     |
|                     |
| /s/  Robert C. Cantwell  |   |
| Robert C. Cantwell       |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| October 27, 2009    |

 

*A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
MYERS v. McGRADY and McGRADY v. FORREST.

No. 391A04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 10, 2006.

Robert T. Hargett, Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Laura J. Gendy, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Div. of Forrest Res., et al.

Donald B. Strickland, Goldsboro, Jerome P. Trehy, Jr., Raleigh, Dirk J. Derrick, Conway, SC, for Gail M. Myers.

Steven M. Sartorio, Raleigh, Jamal A. Rhinehart, for Shirley McGrady & Thomas Higgins.

Rodney E. Petty, for Michael P. Murphy.

F. Fincher Jarrell, Charlotte, for James Foust & William Spencer.

Douglas F. Debank, for Verian Ladson.

Charles L. Becton, Raleigh, for Interested Party.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of January 2006 by Third-Party Defendant (N.C. Division of Forest Services) for Leave to File Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of January 2006."
STATE v. Carlos SEPULVEDA.

No. 573P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of October *3692005 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review on Certification by Supreme Court Under G.S. 7A-31:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of November 2005."
Malcolm PARKER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 1592-04-4.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

February 21, 2006.

Present FITZPATRICK, C.J., BENTON, ELDER, FRANK, HUMPHREYS, CLEMENTS, FELTON, KELSEY, McCLANAHAN and HALEY, JJ.

Upon a Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

On January 24, 2006 came the appellee, by the Attorney General of Virginia, and filed a petition requesting that the Court set aside the judgment rendered herein on, and grant a rehearing *en banc* thereof.

On consideration whereof, the petition for rehearing *en banc* is granted, the mandate entered herein on is stayed pending the decision of the Court *en banc,* and the appeal is reinstated on the docket of this Court.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 5A:35, the following briefing schedule hereby is established: Appellant shall file an opening brief upon rehearing *en banc* within 21 days of the date of entry of this order; appellee shall file an appellee's brief upon rehearing *en banc* within 14 days of the date on which the opening brief is filed; and appellant may file a reply brief upon rehearing *en banc* within 14 days of the date on which the appellee's brief is filed. The appellant shall attach as an addendum to the opening brief upon rehearing *en banc* a copy of the opinion previously rendered by the Court in this matter. It is further ordered that the appellee shall file twelve additional copies of the appendix previously filed in this case.
<PAGE>

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 Marketing WorldWide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Winzkowski, 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, to my
knowledge 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 the
        Company.

/S/ MICHAEL WINZKOWSKI
-----------------------
Michael Winzkowski
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2005
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5043 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Phenmedipham. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2008 

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

Phenmedipham. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PHENMEDIPHAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in heading 9902.13.76, by striking the date 

8 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

9 2011’’; and 

10 (2) by striking heading 9902.31.13. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5043 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a)(1) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
COOK v. ERECT ALL.

No. COA05-861.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #276576)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 10(ddd)

AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO
SUPERIOR TELECOM INC.
STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN
FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
(AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF JULY 1, 2001)

WHEREAS,Superior TeleCom Inc. (the "Company") maintains the Superior TeleCom Inc. Stock Compensation Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Amended and Restated Effective as of July 1, 2001), as amended (the "Plan");

WHEREAS,pursuant to Article X of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") may at any time, and from time to time,
amend, in whole or in part, any or all of the provisions of the Plan; and

WHEREAS,the Board desires to amend the Plan, effective as of December 12, 2002.

NOW, THEREFORE,pursuant to Article X of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of December 12, 2002, as follows:

1.    Section
6.4 of the Plan is amended by adding the following language at the end thereof to read as follows:



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the 12th day of December, 2002.

| |  | SUPERIOR TELECOM INC.
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | By:                  
| |  |                      

---

QuickLinks
Jacqueline DUNN v. Honorable Nancy NORELLI, District Court Judge.

No. 97P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Jacqueline Dunn, Pro Se.

Nancy Norelli, Pro Se.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 24th day of February 2006 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

"Denied by order of the Court in Conference this the 2nd day of March 2006."
# L_2016189DE.01005902.xml

| 14.7.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 189/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 189/59

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 231/2012 der Kommission vom 9. März 2012 mit Spezifikationen für die in den Anhängen II und III der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1333/2008 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates aufgeführten Lebensmittelzusatzstoffe

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 83 vom 22. März 2012
  )

Seite 123, Anhang, Eintrag für E 341(iii) Tricalciumphosphat, in der Zeile „Glühverlust“:

Anstatt:

„mindestens 8 % nach halbstündigem Glühen bei 800 °C ± 25 °C“

muss es heißen:

„höchstens 8 % nach halbstündigem Glühen bei 800 °C ± 25 °C“.

---
STATE v. LOPEZ.

No. COA05-983.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Gaston (04CRS51868, 04CRS51875, 04CRS51876, 04CRS51877, 04CRS51878, 04CRS51880)

Case without published opinion. No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5355 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5355

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain theatrical lighting 
                               fixtures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2008

 Mr. Ackerman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain theatrical lighting 
                               fixtures.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN THEATRICAL LIGHTING FIXTURES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Theatrical          Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          lighting fixtures                                                  31/2011.......
                          of aluminum
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          9405.40.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
ADAMS v. PULLIAM.

No. COA05-1311.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Forsyth, (05CVS3707).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Cleveland Sylvester HARRIS.

No. 241P04-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of February 2005 by Defendant for resentence under the one eight law of the fair sentencing act:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2006."
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134009(17) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134009 COA: 273743 Genesee CC: 01-007626-FC DONTRELL YUVELLE SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court's October 29, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0211 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.

February 19, 2008

Clerk
Order entered January 27 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 22

- 01004

- CV

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellant

V.

SUZZETT YARUM , Appellee

On A ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 18

- 02852

- C

O RDER
By order dated January 9, 2023, we notified Jane t Wright, the official court
reporter for County Court a t Law No. 2, t hat the reporter ’ s record in th i s case was

overdue and order ed her to file eith er (1) the reporter ’ s record, (2) written

verification no hearings were recorded, or (3) written verification appellant has not

pa id for or made arrange ments to pay for the reporter ’ s record. Ms . Wright h as n ot
responded to the Court ’ s order. However, appellant filed a letter informing the
Court that it had requested the reporter ’ s record , been in contact with Ms. Wrightregarding the cost of the record, and was read y and willing to pay for the record

once M s . Wri ght informs appellant of the cos t o f the record

. According ly, we ORDER Janet Wr ight to file the reporter ’ s record by

February 13, 2023

.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to :

Honora ble Sally Montgomery Presiding Judge County Court at Law No. 3
Janet Wright Official Court Reporter Cou nt y Court at Law No. 3
All parties

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TERRY W. STEWART, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 02-1466

MICHAEL THOMAS; MARTHA

WILLIAMS,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

William L. Osteen, District Judge, sitting by designation.

(CA-02-57-3-WLO)

Submitted: September 20, 2002

Decided: November 19, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished

per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Terry W. Stewart, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Terry Stewart appeals the dismissal of his civil complaint and the

imposition of sanctions. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand

for further proceedings on the issue of sanctions. 

We have reviewed the record and the judgment of the district court

finding that Stewart’s complaint is frivolous, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of Stewart’s claims on

the reasoning of the district court. See Stewart v. Thomas, No. CA-02-

57-3-WLO (W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 28, 2002; entered Mar. 29, 2002).

Stewart also asserts that the district court improperly imposed sanctions. While we express no opinion on the propriety of the imposition

of sanctions, the court should have given Stewart proper notice that

sanctions were under consideration and allowed him an opportunity

to respond. In this case, the show cause order did not specifically

inform Stewart that he might be subjected to sanctions if the court

found that he filed his complaint without factual or legal basis. Rule

11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the court provide a party "notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond" before

it imposes sanctions. While the hearing established that Stewart’s

complaint was frivolous, the court should have notified Stewart that

it was considering the pre-filing review order that it imposed. See

Autry v. Woods, 106 F.3d 61, 63 (4th Cir. 1997) (noting that this

Court issued show cause order before entering pre-filing review

injunction). This would have given Stewart a chance to respond to the

propriety of sanctions rather than simply opposing the dismissal of his

complaint. Because the court did not provide Stewart adequate notice

and an opportunity to respond before imposing sanctions, we vacate

the sanctions order and remand for the court to do so. We express no

opinion as to whether Stewart’s conduct merits sanctions or whether

the chosen sanctions are appropriate. 

In sum, we vacate the sanctions order and remand for further proceedings as to sanctions after Stewart is given proper notice and

affirm the court’s orders in all other respects. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre2 STEWART v. THOMAS
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

STEWART v. THOMAS 3
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40111 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. ISRAEL ESTRADA-INFANTE Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-735-1 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Israel Estrada-Infante (Estrada) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to consider his family ties and obligations and his rehabilitative efforts. Estrada, however, has been released from federal custody and removed from the United States, leaving him subject only to an undischarged term of supervised release. Because Estrada has requested relief in the form of United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40111

2 resentencing, relief we cannot grant, his appeal is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 383 (5thCir.), petition for cert. filed, (June 25, 2007) (No. 06-12082). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
STATE v. Kevin Lamont LEAK.

No. 664P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2005.

Richard E. Jester, for Kevin Lamont Leak.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of December 2005 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of December 2005."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7421

LORENZO ADKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDENS, Indian Creek Correctional Center,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-95-315)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Adkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See I.O.P. 36.5 and 36.6.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a

filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th

Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the

case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee

order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district

court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE v. HOWELL.

No. COA05-162.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from Iredell (97CRS7004).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in trial; Remanded for resentencing.
# L_2015188EN.01005501.xml

| 16.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 188/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 188/55

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 298 of 26 October 2012
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 298 of 26 October 2012

On page 5, Contents, row concerning Article 110:

for:

| ‘Article 110 | Award criteria for contacts | 54, |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘Article 110

read:

| ‘Article 110 | Award criteria for contracts | 54. |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘Article 110

---
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00456

- CR

Willie Earnest Seals IV
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 440th District Court of Coryell County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19

- 25829

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on
appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
December 16, 2021
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5158 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, unique 

ZIP Code for Windsor Heights, Iowa. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2008 

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

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a 

single, unique ZIP Code for Windsor Heights, Iowa. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODE FOR WINDSOR 

4 HEIGHTS, IOWA. 

5 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact6 ment of this Act, the United States Postal Service shall 

7 designate a single, unique ZIP Code for Windsor Heights, 

8 Iowa, that encompasses the entire city. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0719

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:

WARREN DAN EDDLEMAN,

 Deceased.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 16(5), the parties to this appeal have stipulated to the 

dismissal of the appeal by Appellant Morro Bay Ranch Limited Partnership.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED as to Appellant 

Morro Bay Ranch Limited Partnership. This appeal may proceed as to the other parties.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all parties of record.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 30 2024

04/30/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0719
# C_2013086EN.01002901.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/29

---

Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Dimension Data Belgium v Parliament

(Case T-650/11) (1)

1

2013/C 86/49

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.

1

---