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 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Kitty Hawk, Inc. (the Company), does hereby
certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2004
(the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q. Date: August 12, 2004
    By:
    /s/ ROBERT W. ZOLLER, JR.Robert W. Zoller, Jr.Chief Executive Officer and President Date: August 12, 2004
    By:
    /s/ RANDY S. LEISERRandy S. LeiserVice President and Chief Financial Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form
10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part
of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
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 Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, David P. Anastasi, 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:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ DAVID P. ANASTASI                
|David P. Anastasi                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 8, 2007
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy Wayne HARP, Jr.

No. COA15-409.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
HIGH POINT BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. HIGHMARK PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.

No. 8PA14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Alan B. Powell, High Point, for High Point Bank and Trust Company.

Ellis B. Drew, III, Winston-Salem, for Highmark Properties, LLC, et al.

Christopher Charles Finan, High Point, for High Point Bank and Trust Company.

Matthew Allen Lawson Anderson, for High Point Bank and Trust Company.

Ann G. Sugg, for Highmark Properties, LLC, et al.

G. Christopher Olson, Raleigh, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Frank Goldsmith, Marion, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of August 2014 by Plaintiff for the Court to Take Judicial Notice:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
TSG FINISHING, LLC v. Keith BOLLINGER.

No. 25P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Matthew K. Rogers, Hickory, for TSG Finishing, LLC.

*846Michael R. Thomas, for Bollinger, Keith.

Thomas Filopoulos, for Bollinger, Keith.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 16th of January 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 20th of August 2015."
# C_2023271EN.01003502.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/35

---

Action brought on 19 June 2023 — MPM-Quality v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (PRIM)

(Case T-333/23)

(2023/C 271/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: MPM-Quality v.o.s. (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Město nad Metují, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark PRIM — Application No 12 030 441

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2023 in Joined Cases R 1308/2022-2 and R 1325/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul operative parts I., II., IV. and V. of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul operative parts I., II., IV. and V. of the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          54,262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,730
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 374,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,371
<BONDS>                                         18,027
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       268,107
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   374,408
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,086
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,119)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,209
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,651)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,860
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,860
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.79
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6732

MILFORD WASHINGTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:07-cv-00293-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008

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

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milford Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Milford Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.

2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Washington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
# CE2004078EN.01016001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/160 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/160

---

(2004/C 78 E/0164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2739/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Leader+: pre-financing by promoters

Subject:

Under the Leader+ programme, proof of the completed implementation of the intended measures must be provided following the project's approval. This includes producing receipted invoices, meaning that the promoters must settle the bill before being reimbursed and must therefore be able to pre-finance their own measures. For financially weak promoters, however, this is often not possible.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

Is it possible for promoters who are not able to provide upfront funding for their measures to be exempt from the requirement to produce receipted invoices?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

(7 October 2003)

The Commission knows about and regrets the difficulties spoken of by the Honourable Member that recipients of assistance under the Leader+ programme may encounter. The rule of reimbursing only expenditure actually incurred is, however, a common one for all payments from the four Community Structural Funds, including the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guidance Section, and applies to all types of programme. It is a matter of compliance with Article 32(1) third subparagraph of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), which states that ‘interim payments and payments of the balance shall relate to expenditure actually paid out, which must correspond to payments effected by the final beneficiaries, supported by receipted invoices or accounting documents of equivalent probative value.’ There is no provision for any exception to this rule.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEFFREY PETER THOMPSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 848 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Kenneth BREATH, Employee, Plaintiff, v. ORTHOCAROLINA, Employer, The Hartford Insurance Co., Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA15-669.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, James C. Minerly, Senior Financial Officer of enherent Corp., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of enherent Corp.;



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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant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(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, 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 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 fiscal 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 financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 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.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ James C. Minerly                   
|James C. Minerly                       
|Senior Financial Officer March 31, 2005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [ES-960-1420-BJ-TRST] ES-053722, Group No. 170, Minnesota

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of filing of plat survey; Minnesota.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The lands we surveyed are:

## Fifth Principal Meridian, Minnesota

T. 143 N., R. 37 W.

The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of portions of the south, east, west and north boundaries, a portion of the subdivisional lines; and the dependent resurvey and survey of the subdivision of sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 34 and 36, Township 143 North, Range 37 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in the State of Minnesota., and was accepted September 1, 2005. We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information.

                    If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.                          ( print page 53812)    

We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals.

Dated: September 1, 2005.

Stephen D. Douglas,

Chief Cadastral Surveyor.

[FR Doc. 05-17975 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
Letter of the Federal reserve Bank of St. Louis, dated Nov. 17, 2010.


 Exhibit 10.2 
 



 
 November 17, 2010 
 Board of Directors 
 C/O Lewis F. Mallory, Jr., Chairman 

Cadence Financial Corporation 
 301 East Main
Street 
 P.O. Box 1187 
 Starkville,
Mississippi 39760-1 187 
 Dear Board Members: 
 Regarding the Written Agreement (WA) executed today by the board of directors of Cadence Financial Corporation, Starkville, Mississippi (Cadence) and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, pursuant to
Provision 13 of the WA, Cadence is hereby granted an extension of time to submit certain plans and projections required by the agreement. Specifically, Cadence is granted an extension to February 28, 2011, to submit a Capital Plan (Provision
4), Cash Flow Projections (Provision 6), and Earnings Plan and Budget (Provision 7). Granting this extension is intended to provide Cadence’s proposed new owner sufficient time to participate in the development and implementation of the
required plans and projections. 
 If you have any questions, please contact me at 314-444-8440, or Assistant Vice President
Scott B. Smith at 314-444-8836. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Timothy A. Bosch

	Timothy A. Bosch
	Vice President
EDWARDS v. HOLDEN.

No. COA07-1454.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Brunswick (07CVS1148).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# CE2004088EN.01060402.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/604 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/604

---

(2004/C 88 E/0622)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0985/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Pesaro

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pesaro, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         264,209
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,647,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 13,907,443
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,087,697
<PP&E>                                       9,851,702
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,852,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,487,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,340,515
<BONDS>                                     14,066,072
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,911
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,845,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,487,015
<SALES>                                     50,087,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            50,087,268
<CGS>                                       40,790,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               40,790,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,545,974
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             797,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                966,282
<INCOME-TAX>                                   362,187
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            604,095
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   604,095
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.09
        

</TABLE>