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 SeaChange International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William C. Styslinger, III, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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; 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/ WILLIAM C. STYSLINGER, III                                       
|William C. Styslinger, III                                           
|President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman ofthe Board and Director

April 13, 2007
# L_2012081EN.01004201.xml

| 21.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 81/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 81/42

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 248/2012

of 20 March 2012

withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO’ Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Submission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4318 were suspended as from 19 January 2012 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 41/2012 of 18 January 2012 suspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Submission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4318 were suspended as from 19 January 2012 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 41/2012 of 18 January 2012 suspending submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.

| (2) | Following notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for that order number. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The suspension laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 41/2012 of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4318 as from 19 January 2012 is withdrawn.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 March 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 254, 26.9.2009, p. 82.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 40.

3

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Edward Lewis MATHIS.

No. 145P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Daniel Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Edward Lewis Mathis.

Amy Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Appellant on the 21st day of March 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of March 2006 by Appellant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*893"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5478 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5478

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide for the continued minting and issuance of certain $1 coins 
                                in 2008.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That clause (i) of 
section 5112(n)(1)(B) of title 31, United States Code (as in effect on 
the day before the date of the enactment of Public Law 110-82) shall

              

 continue in effect, notwithstanding the amendment made by section 3 of 
Public Law 110-82, until the effective date of the amendment made by 
section 2 of such Public Law.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 25, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5478

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To provide for the continued minting and issuance of certain $1 coins 
                                in 2008.
```
STATE v. Kyle BERRY.

No. 389A01-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 6, 2005.

William F.W. Massengale, Chapel Hill, for Kyle Berry.

William N. Farrell, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of June 2005 by Defendant to Extend Time to Serve Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 18th day of July 2005 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of June 2005."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6974

MARK STEVEN FORTIER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PAUL ATENCIO, Agent for the South Carolina Law

Enforcement Division,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-93-2519-2-18AJ)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Steven Fortier, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II,

Elizabeth Newell Keenan, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A.,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to

object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Nicholas W. Baxter, President and Chief Executive Officer of Eurasia Energy Limited, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Eurasia Energy Limited;



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(d)) 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's 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.









Dated August 14, 2006

/s/Nicholas W. Baxter

Nicholas W. Baxter,

President and Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard L. Peteka, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Apollo Investment
Corporation, certify that:

        1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Apollo
Investment Corporation;

        2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

       3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flow of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

        4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared; and

              b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

              c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over the financial
reporting;

        5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Dated this 8th day of November, 2004


/s/    RICHARD L. PETEKA
------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### Nicholai Cherkasets et al., Respondents, v Marcus Gordon et al., Defendants, and Eastern Women’s Medical Center, Inc./Old East, Inc., Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 322]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Carey, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff mother alleges that infant plaintiff’s neurological injuries were caused by defendants’ malpractice committed during her pregnancy and delivery. Defendant Dr. Gordon, the attending physician who performed the delivery, was the medical director of nonparty Washington Heights Medical Service Group, EC., doing business as defendant Health Services for Women (HSW), where plaintiff mother had received her prenatal care. Defendant-appellant Eastern Women’s Medical Center, *857Inc./Old East, Inc. (Eastern) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it on the grounds that it was in the business of providing abortion, not obstetrical, services, and that, although it occupied the same building as HSW/ Washington Heights, it was separate from that corporation and never treated plaintiff mother. Plaintiffs argued that Eastern and HSW were in fact a single entity, and that their corporate veils should be pierced to expose both to liability. In the latter regard, Dr. Gordon, HSW’s medical director, testified at deposition that he believed HSW and Eastern were actually two arms of the same entity—Eastern being the arm that performed abortions and HSW being the arm that provided general gynecological and obstetrical care. In addition, all four officers of Washington Heights were officers of Eastern; the two corporations had the same president, executive vice-president, and administrative staff; Eastern’s medical director oversaw HSW’s administration and was involved in the care of HSW patients; Dr. Gordon performed abortions for Eastern; HSW was located on the same floor as Eastern’s administrative offices and used its sonogram equipment; and the names and assets of HSW/ Washington Heights and Eastern were sold at the same time to another corporation after the alleged medical malpractice. Based on this evidence, the motion court correctly held that an issue of fact exists as to whether Eastern and HSW operated as a single entity and whether Eastern’s corporate veil should be pierced *(see Forum Ins. Co. v Texarkoma Transp. Co., 229*AD2d 341, 342 [1996]; *Goldberg v Lee Express Cab Corp.,*227 AD2d 241 [1996]; *Berliner Handels-und Frankfurter Bank, N.Y. Branch v Coppola,*172 AD2d 369 [1991]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
LaBRIE v. McGLONE.

No. COA05-209.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 4, 2006.

Certification Date April 24, 2006.

Appeal from Iredell (03CVD2282).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Durron Burnnin RAY.

No. 651P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Durron Burnnin Ray, Pro Se.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 17th day of November 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
Exhibit 10.15

MAYOR                                                                 COUNCILMEN
Kent Eknes                                                         Jerry Burgers
CITY ADMINISTRATOR        [CITY OF ROCK VALLEY LOGO]                 Dale Kooima
Tom Van Maanen                                                       Mark McGill
CITY CLERK                                                    Kevin Van Otterloo
Judy Van't Hul                                                      Chad Van Zee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1507 Main Street - PO Box 100 - Rock Valley, IA 51247 - Phone: (712) 476-5707






      April 2,2004


      To Whom It May Concern:

           For American Pallet Leasing Company Project in Rock Valley, Iowa


      The Rock Valley Economic Development Corporation has made a financial
      commitment to American Pallet Leasing Company to attract this new industry
      to Rock Valley. We have purchased 40 acres and are working on the
      development of this property as it relates to American Pallet Leasing Co.
      RVEDC will provide the 12 acres that is needed for this project and the
      City of Rock Valley will provide the infrastructure needed to fully
      develop this property.

      This property in Westview Business Park identified for the American Pallet
      Leasing project is valued at $600,000. Along with the infrastructure costs
      for this land being developed, there is an additional $127,000 cost for
      dirt work and site preparation which RVEDC will assume for this project.
      This outstanding industrial property will be fully developed and ready for
      building construction by APL.

      The City of Rock Valley and the Rock Valley Economic Development
      Corporation looks forward to working with American Pallet Leasing Company
      on this outstanding project. We are committed to the future growth and
      progress in this area. American Pallet Leasing will be a major project for
      this community and we are committed to assist them in every way possible.

      Sincerely,

      /s/ James Vander Velde

      James Vander Velde
      Development Director




                            www.cityofrockvalley.com
STATE v. Rodney K. JETER.

No. 556P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

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 21st day of September 2005 by Defendant for Reconsideration and Revisit of the State of N.C. Application to Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed. By order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of October 2005."
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Monster
Worldwide, Inc.
New York, New York

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference, in the previously filed open Registration Statements on Forms S-3 and S-8 (Nos. 333-81843,
333-63631, 333-50699, 333-18937, 333-63499, 333-88193, 333-75031, 333-93065, 333-70795,
333-83131, 333-96101, 333-61400, 333-71062, 333-109598, 333-115007, 333-116004 and 333-131899) of Monster
Worldwide, Inc., of our reports dated February 3, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Monster Worldwide, Inc.'s internal control over
financial reporting, which appear in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.

| | /s/BDO SEIDMAN, LLPBDO Seidman, LLP
| | -----------------------------------

New
York, New York
February 16, 2006

---



QuickLinks