alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1





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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of INTERNATIONAL CONSOLIDATED COMPANIES,
INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





Dated:
August 19,
2008





/s/
Antonio F. Uccello, III


Antonio
F. Uccello, III


Chief
Executive Officer
Anna YOUNG v. PRANCING HORSE, INC. and Ronni Meltzer.

No. 329PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 16, 2005.

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 614 S.E.2d 607 (2005), affirming an order granting summary judgment in defendants' favor entered by Judge James M. Webb in Superior Court, Moore County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 December 2005.

Webb & Graves, PLLC, by Jerry D. Rhoades, Jr., Carthage, for plaintiff-appellant.

Beaver, Holt, Richardson, Sternlicht, Burge & Glazier, P.A., by F. Thomas Holt, III, Fayetteville, for defendant-appellee Prancing Horse, Inc.

Brown, Crump, Vanore & Tierney, L.L.P., by Derek M. Crump, Raleigh, for defendant-appellee Ronni Meltzer.

*492PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
Exhibit 32.2





STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the Form10-Q) of Citizens Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (the Company), I, Ronald E. Baron, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(a)

the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b)

the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company asof and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



/s/ Ronald E. Baron

Date: November 10, 2005

Ronald E. Baron

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN RE C.L.

No. COA05-379

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Buncombe (03J296).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Levonia WILLIAMS.

No. 708P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Daniel F. Read, Durham, for Williams.

Michelle B. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of December 2005 by Defendant 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd day of March 2006."
STATE v. CANNON.

No. COA04-1425.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 6, 2005.

Certification Date December 27, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<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 December 31, 2004 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

October 25, 2005
**EXHIBIT 31.2****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Robert M. Neumeister, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dex Media West LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors or (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 8, 2005       /s/ Robert M. Neumeister, Jr.         Robert M. Neumeister, Jr.    Executive Vice President and    Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial Officer)
WINDHAM v. BRITTHAVEN.

No. 641P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Michael C. Hurly, Raleigh, Erin D. McNeill, T. Carlton Younger, III, for Britthaven, Inc., et al.

Thomas W. Henson, Jr., Rocky Mount, for Deborah Windham.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of December 2005 by Plaintiff to Vacate Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2006."
<PAGE>   1
                                    Exhibit 11.1

                              ASCENT PEDIATRICS, INC.
                     COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   BASIC (1)(2)
                                                                   ------------
<S>                                                                  <C>
For the year ended December 31, 1997:
   Common stock outstanding, beginning of the period                   198,155
   Weighted average common stock issued during the period            3,935,913
                                                                     ---------
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding              4,134,068
                                                                     =========
   Net loss per common share                                         $   (3.08)
                                                                     =========

For the year ended December 31, 1996:
   Common stock outstanding, beginning of the period                   197,837
   Weighted average common stock issued during the period                  254
                                                                     ---------
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                198,091
                                                                     =========
   Net loss per common share                                         $  (33.44)
                                                                     =========

For the year ended December 31, 1995:
   Common stock outstanding, beginning of the period                   197,837
   Weighted average common stock issued during the period                    0
                                                                     ---------
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                197,837
                                                                     =========

   Net loss per common share                                          $ (21.05)
                                                                     =========
</TABLE>


(1) All shares have been restated to reflect a 0.85-for-one reverse stock split.
    See Note J.

(2) The number of shares outstanding for basic net loss per common share is the
    same as the number of shares outstanding for diluted net loss per common
    share.
STATE v. Robert Wayne STANLEY.

No. 376P02-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of March 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for Writ of Certiorari":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Huey Lee HOLDEN.

No. 393P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Southern Pines, for Defendant-Appellant.

Patrick S. Wooten, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th day of July 2005 by Defendant 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:

*499"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5584 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5584

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
 to identify a western passage of the CANAMEX Corridor in Arizona, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2008

 Mr. Grijalva introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
 to identify a western passage of the CANAMEX Corridor in Arizona, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CANAMEX CORRIDOR IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

    Section 1105(c)(26) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (109 Stat. 596) is amended by striking ``(26) 
The CANAMEX Corridor'' and all that follows through subparagraph (A) 
and inserting the following:
            ``(26) The CANAMEX Corridor from Nogales, Arizona, through 
        Las Vegas, Nevada, to Salt Lake City, Utah, to Idaho Falls, 
        Idaho, to Montana, to the Canadian Border, including a western 
        passage in the State of Arizona from San Luis, as follows:
                    ``(A) In the State of Arizona--
                            ``(i) the CANAMEX Corridor shall generally 
                        follow--
                                    ``(I) I-19 from Nogales to Tucson;
                                    ``(II) I-10 from Tucson to Phoenix; 
                                and
                                    ``(III) United States Route 93 in 
                                the vicinity of Phoenix to the Nevada 
                                Border; and
                            ``(ii) the western passage of the CANAMEX 
                        Corridor shall generally follow--
                                    ``(I) State Route 195 in the 
                                vicinity of San Luis to United States 
                                Route 95 to State Route 95 to its 
                                intersection with I-40;
                                    ``(II) I-40 to its intersection 
                                with United States Route 93 in the 
                                vicinity of Kingman; and
                                    ``(III) United States Route 93 to 
                                the Nevada Border.''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Christopher Edward GOSS.

No. 316A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 22, 2006.

Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of March 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve and File Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 9th day of June 2006 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 22nd day of March 2006."
# L_2012227EN.01000101.xml

| 23.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 227/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 227/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 762/2012

of 24 July 2012

approving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Langres (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined France's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the name ‘Langres’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/1996 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission has examined France's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the name ‘Langres’ registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/1996 (2).

| (2) | Since the amendment in question is not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendment should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Since the amendment in question is not minor within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of that Regulation. As no statement of objection within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been sent to the Commission, the amendment should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that 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, 24 July 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p.12.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p.1.

2

(3)  
  OJ C 247, 25.8.2011, p.11.

3

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.3.   Cheeses

FRANCE

Langres (PDO)

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID YULO MARTINEZ III,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

CHARLES L. RYAN; ATTORNEY

GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF

ARIZONA,

Respondents

- Appellees. No. 18

- 16372

D.C. No. 4:15

- cv

- 00566

- BPV

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Bernardo P. V elasco

, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 11, 2019 **

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner David Yulo Martinez III appeals the district court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253 and we review the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 16 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

denial of Martinez’s petition de novo

. Nedds v. Calderon , 678 F.3d 777, 780 (9th

Cir. 2012). We affirm.

Martinez concedes that his petitio n was filed untimely. He contends only

that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) one

- year statute of limitations from March 2015 until July

2015

— a period during which he was hospitalized for hip surgery. But Martinez

(concededly) did not raise this argument to the district court, and our ordinary

practice is that arguments raised for the first time on appeal are waived absent

exceptional circumstances

. United States v. Monreal , 301 F.3d 1127, 113 1 (9th

Cir. 2002). To prevail on his appeal, Martinez thus must demonstrate both that he

is entitled to equitable tolling and that some exceptional circumstance justifies

overlooking that Martinez waived his equitable tolling argument. Because we see

no su ch exceptional circumstances, we conclude that Martinez waived his

equitable tolling argument.

AFFIRMED.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5621 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend concurrent receipt authority 

to members and former members of the uniformed services who are 

entitled to voluntary separation incentive payments and are also entitled 

to veterans’ disability compensation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2008 

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend concurrent 

receipt authority to members and former members of 

the uniformed services who are entitled to voluntary separation incentive payments and are also entitled to veterans’ disability compensation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONCURRENT PAYMENT OF VOLUNTARY SEPA4 RATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS AND VET5 ERANS’ DISABILITY COMPENSATION. 

6 (a) INCLUSION OF MEMBERS RECEIVING VSI PAY7 MENTS.—Section 1414(e)(2) of title 10, United States 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5621 IH

1 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘and naval pension’’ and in2 serting ‘‘, naval pension, and voluntary separation incen3 tive payments under section 1175 of this title’’. 

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

5 subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and 

6 shall apply to payments covered by section 1414 of title 

7 10, United States Code, made after that date. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5631 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1155 Seminole Trail in Charlottesville, Virginia, as the ‘‘Corporal Bradley T. Arms Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5631 EH

1 SECTION 1. CORPORAL BRADLEY T. ARMS POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 1155 Seminole Trail in Char5 lottesville, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Corporal Bradley T. Arms Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Bradley T. 

11 Arms Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 29, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5631 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postley T. Arms Post Office Building’’. Charlottesville, Virginia, as the ‘‘Corporal Brad- al Service located at 1155 Seminole Trail in
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 2

- 0 669

_____________________________
V INCENT C HARO , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. J. Lee Marsh
, Judge

. December 18, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
O STERHAUS , C.J., and B.L. T HOMAS and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Vincent Charo , pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend , Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Ap pellee

.