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

                                  JETFLEET III

                    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 this quarterly report of JetFleet III (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Neal D. Crispin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
              indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to JetFleet III and will be retained
by JetFleet III and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Date:  May 14, 2004                 /s/     Neal D. Crispin
                                    ----------------------------------
                                    Neal D. Crispin
                                    President, Chief Financial Officer
----

(2004/C 33 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1805/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Repeal of Commission rules on traditional shipments of sugar from the Azores

The European Court of Justice's ruling of 15 May 2003 on Case C-282/00 establishes (point 46) that responsibility for the determination of traditional shipments of sugar from the Azores lies with the national courts.

When does the Commission intend to repeal its legislation relating to implementing provisions, in particular Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 (1). which runs contrary to the Court decision?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2003)

In its judgment of 15 May 2003 in Case C-282/00 RAR ν Sinaga (not yet published), the Court of Justice held that it was for the referring court to assess whether shipments of sugar which had been refined in the Azores and which had benefited from the specific supply arrangements forming the subject of the main action possessed the characteristics of traditional shipments.

The Court of Justice stated in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the judgment that

The Commission considers that the practice followed up to now of quantifying the volume of products which may be re-exported or reshipped on the basis of the average annual volume of shipments/exports in the three years before Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 (2) entered into force is in accordance with the principles stated by the Court of Justice in the above judgment.

The Commission does not therefore intend to repeal Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 (3) at this stage.

----

(1)OJ L 8, 11.1.2002, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/02 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products — OJ L 173, 27.6.1992.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 20/2002 of 28 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing the specific supply arrangements for the outermost regions introduced by Council Regulations (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001 and (EC) No 1454/2001 - OJ L 8, 11.1.2002.

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

      In connection with the Annual Report of Clickable  Enterprises,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of
the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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  operation of the
Company.

Date: July 21, 2004                             By: /s/ Guy Pipolo
                                                   --------------------
                                                   Guy Pipolo
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to Clickable  Enterprises,
Inc. and will be retained by Clickable  Enterprises,  Inc. and  furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6554

ROBERT BREHM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv02462-RWT)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Brehm, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Brehm appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Brehm v. United States, No. 8:07-cv02462-RWT (D. Md. filed Mar. 31, 2008, entered Apr. 1, 2008). We

deny Brehm’s motion to add parties. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
     Electric  Lightwave,  Inc.'s  Financial  Statements  for the  period  ended
     December  31, 1999 and is  qualified  in its  entirety by reference to such
     financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         21,378
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  39,952
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               70,415
<PP&E>                                         771,947
<DEPRECIATION>                                 76,288
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 775,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          120,238
<BONDS>                                        624,997
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       502
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,999
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   775,234
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               187,008
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  79,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               41,222
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             38,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (132,649)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   898
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (133,547)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (133,547)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (2.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (2.68)



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marvin Morris, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 292]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered December 10, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification.

The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding evidence suggesting that the instant crime might have been committed by an unidentified serial criminal. Defendant’s exoneration of two rapes that were committed in the same neighborhood shortly after the push-in robbery in this case, where the rapes bore some similarities to the instant burglary, as well as significant differences, and where one of the victims identified defendant as the perpetrator, raised only a suspicion or surmise that *831the man who committed the rapes committed the instant crimes. Since there was no evidence linking the rapes with the instant burglary, the proffered evidence was speculative and lacking in probative value *(see People v Primo,*96 NY2d 351 [2001]; *People v Collins,*8 AD3d 56 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 672 [2004]). Inasmuch as defendant did not assert a constitutional right to introduce the excluded evidence, his constitutional argument is unpreserved *(see People v Angelo,*88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; *People v Gonzalez,*54 NY2d 729 [1981]; *see also Smith v Duncan,*411 F3d 340, 348-349 [2d Cir 2005]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no violation of defendant’s right to present a defense *(see Crane v Kentucky,*476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]).

Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel is not reviewable on direct appeal since it involves matters outside the record concerning counsel’s trial tactics *(see People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). To the extent the existing record permits review, it establishes that defendant received effective assistance under both the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
# C_2023329EN.01003502.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/35

---

Action brought on 27 July 2023 — Sparkasse Hannover v SRB

(Case T-457/23)

(2023/C 329/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sparkasse Hannover (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: F. Kruis and N. Bartmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-410/23, BAWAG PSK v SRB.

---
# CE2004078EN.01011101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/111 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/111

---

(2004/C 78 E/0112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2408/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Watching an LCD screen whilst driving a motor vehicle

Subject:

According to a report in the 28 June 2003 edition of the Flemish-language newspaper ‘Het Belang van Limburg’, more and more drivers are installing in their vehicles LCD screens on which DVDs and video games may be played. This does not always involve ‘operational’ information, such as route maps, or the entertainment of passengers; in many cases, the screen is also used for the driver's own amusement. Although some types of the equipment involved have a built-in safety device — which ensures that the screen may be used only when the handbrake is on — that device is often overridden.

In many European countries, using a telephone whilst driving is forbidden unless the car is equipped with a hands-free set. Since, on the one hand, watching a screen of this nature and, on the other, paying due attention to the traffic situation are mutually exclusive, the Netherlands Government recently decided to prohibit the installation of LCD screens which the driver may watch whilst driving.

Is the Commission aware of the fashion for installing LCD screens for drivers, and, in line with the Netherlands, is it thinking of introducing a Europe-wide ban on such products which distract drivers when they are driving?

If so, what specific measures will it take, and will the ban apply to both ‘operational’ and ‘entertainment’ use?

If not, why will it not follow the example of the Netherlands Government?

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher T. JAMES.

No. 183P02-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Christopher T. James, Pro Se.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 23rd day of May 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. (the company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 (the Report), I, T. Kendall Hunt, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ T. Kendall Hunt                                           
|T. Kendall Hunt                                               
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors

March 16, 2010
Converted by EDGARwiz














SECOND AMENDMENT 

TO

5% CONVERTIBLE NOTE DUE 2009




OF




BROADCAST INTERNATIONAL, INC.







Original Principal Amount :  $1,000,000

Original Issuance Date:  October 16, 2006










Whereas, Leon Frenkel (“Holder”) and Broadcast International, Inc. (“Company”) entered into that certain 5% Convertible Note Due 2009 (“Note”) on or about October 16, 2006, as amended as of December 22, 2009, and desire to amend further the Note to extend the Final Maturity Date.




Now therefore, the Note is hereby amended as follows:




Paragraph 1(b) is hereby amended to provide that the “Final Maturity Date” shall be defined as January 1, 2011.







All other terms and conditions of the Note, as previously amended, shall continue in full force and effect subject only to the terms of this Amendment.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have amended the Note effective as of the 15th day of November, 2010.








		
	BROADCAST INTERNATIONAL, INC.










By   /s/ James E. Solomon                

     James E. Solomon

     CFO

	LEON FRENKEL










By    /s/ Leon Frenkel
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18190]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 7, 2005.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. North American Bancshares, Inc., Sherman, Texas, and Texoma 
Holding Company, Inc., Dover, Delaware; to acquire 100 percent of the 
voting shares of State Bank & Trust of Seguin, Seguin, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 8, 
2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-18190 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
TRUHAN v. WALSTON, et al.

No. 364P14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2015.

Ann C. Ochsner, Raleigh, for Walston, Susan P.

Bryan T. Simpson, Natalia K. Isenberg, Raleigh, for Truhan, Daniel, et al.

Timothy W. Wilson, Rocky Mount, for North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company.

M. Greg Crumpler, Rocky Mount, for United Services Automobile Association.

Thomas H. Morris, Wilson, for Walston, Susan P, et al.

Donald E. Clark, Jr., Goldsboro, for Walston, David M.

James D. Secor, III, for Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company.

Jonathan M. Smith, Goldsboro.

Donald J. Dunn, Goldsboro, for Truhan, Daniel Joseph.

Fred Baggett, for N.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, for N.C. Association of County Commissioners.

Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, Sharon J. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney, for New Hanover County.

Lowell L. Siler, Durham, for Durham County.

Angela I. Carmon, for City of Winston Salem.

R. Michael Cox, Pasquotank County Attorney, for Pasquotank County Debra Bechtel, for Catawba County.

Sam Shames, for Gaston County.

John F. Henning, Jr., Franklin, for Town of Franklin.

Wesley L. Deaton, for Lincoln County.

*68Huey B. Marshall, Bolivia, for Brunswick County.

Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, for N.C. Sheriffs' Association.

Leon M. Killian, III, Raleigh, for Haywood County.

Chester M. Jones, Franklin, for Macon County.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of October 2014 by City of Winston Salem for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2015."
STATE v. Thomas Howard DUNCAN.

No. 91A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 8, 2008.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Lis Miles, for Duncan.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of August 2008 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Duncan) shall have up to and including the 15th day of September 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of August 2008."