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








The
      following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
      and Chief Financial Officer of Saxon Capital, Inc. on the basis of such
      officer’s knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002:





**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Saxon Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2006 (the “Report”), the undersigned, as Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 their knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and





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





May
                9, 2006
            /s/
                Michael L. Sawyer
              Michael
                L. Sawyer
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              
              /s/
                Robert B. Eastep
              Robert
                B. Eastep
              Chief
                Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission upon request. This certification accompanies the Report
      and shall not be treated as having been filed as part of the
      Report.
Exhibit 10.1

                                 ASPA GOLD CORP.
                 (formerly known as Renaissance BioEnergy Inc.)
                              SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT

The undersigned  shareholder  ("Shareholder") of ASPA Gold Corp. (formerly known
as Renaissance BioEnergy Inc.), a Nevada corporation  ("Company"),  for good and
valuable consideration and intending to be legally bound hereby, enters into the
following agreement for the benefit of the Company and all other shareholders of
the Company who enter into  substantially  similar agreements during the term of
this Agreement.

     1.   Shareholder has acquired  53,000,000 (Fifty three million)  restricted
          shares of common  stock,  US$0.00001  par value,  of the Company  (the
          "Restricted  Shares").  Shareholder  hereby  agrees  that,  during the
          period from the date hereof until  November 24, 2012 (the  "Restricted
          Period"),   Shareholder  will  not  sell,  alienate,  pledge,  assign,
          transfer, convey or in any way encumber any of the Restricted Shares.

     2.   For a period  of 2 (Two)  years  following  the end of the  Restricted
          Period, Shareholder will not sell, alienate, pledge, assign, transfer,
          convey or in any way encumber more than 2,000,000 (Two million) shares
          of the Restricted Shares during any consecutive  period of 90 (ninety)
          days.

     3.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply to the  Restricted  Shares,  even after
          such  shares may have  become  free-trading  pursuant  to Rule 144, an
          effective SEC registration statement or some other cause.  Shareholder
          understands that the certificates for the Restricted Shares shall bear
          a  restrictive  legend and that stop  transfer  instructions  shall be
          issued to the Company's Transfer Agent.

     4.   The Company and each other holder of restricted  shares of the Company
          who executes and delivers a substantially similar agreement shall each
          be third party beneficiaries of this Agreement and shall have standing
          to enforce this Agreement.

     5.   This Agreement  shall be governed by and construed in accordance  with
          the  laws  of  the  State  of  Nevada  (other  than   conflict-of-laws
          principles).  Shareholder  hereby consents to the  jurisdiction of the
          State and Federal  courts  sitting in Clark  County,  Nevada,  for all
          cases and  controversies  arising from this Agreement and acknowledges
          that said courts are not "inconvenient forums."
<PAGE>
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Shareholder has executed and delivered this Agreement as of
the day and year set forth below.

NORTH AMERICAN GOLD & MINERALS FUND,
A Nevada corporation


By /s/ RONALD YADIN LOWENTHAL
  --------------------------------------
  RONALD YADIN LOWENTHAL

  Date: November 24, 2010
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00309-CR

IN RE RICHARD FRANKLIN

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Franklin filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the trial judge of 

the 87th District Court of Freestone County. It appears from the petition that in June of 

this year, Franklin filed a motion nunc pro tunc with the trial court asking for pre and 

post sentencing jail time credit. Franklin now requests this Court to compel the trial 

court to grant Franklin’s motion nunc pro tunc for jail time credit. This, we cannot do. 

See State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).

Accordingly, Franklin’s petition is denied.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
In re Franklin Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed September 17, 2008

Do not publish

[OT06]
# C_2009282EN.01000302.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-335/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Failure to require more stringent treatment of nitrogen in all treatment plants of urban waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent)

2009/C 282/04

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen, L. Parpala, M. Patakia and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Art. 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to require that all urban waste water collected from agglomerations of more than 10 000 population equivalent be subject to more efficient treatment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6562

JAMIE RAY FURLOUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. A. GARRAGHTY, Warden; RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; G. P. WILLIAMS, Associate Warden; MS. MILLARD, Associate Warden; P. A. EDGE, Warden’s Designee; D. TRENT, Lieutenant,Housing Unit Manager; MS. BIGGS; M. MCKRINSTRY, Law Library Supervisor; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees, and L. ADAMS, Law Library Official; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-322) Submitted: January 18, 2000 Decided: February 7, 2000 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamie Ray Furlough, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Jamie Ray Furlough appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Furlough v. Garraghty , No. CA-98-322 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 1999). 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00550-CV

In re James John Palermo

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator James John Palermo has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking

relief from an order signed by the trial court ten months ago, on October 23, 2007, modifying a prior

custody order. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8. That order was a final, appealable order, subject to

the procedural rules applied to other appeals. See Bilyeu v. Bilyeu, 86 S.W.3d 278, 280

(Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) (“In a suit to modify a SAPCR, . . . the original decree remains

final and a new final order results from the modification proceeding.”); In re N.J.G., 980 S.W.2d

764, 766-67 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (“The Texas Family Code permits a party to

appeal ‘a final order’ in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.”). Thus, to attack the order,

Palermo had to file a notice of appeal within the usual appellate deadlines. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Waldrop

Filed: September 5, 2008
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 12, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10760 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00120-CR-1-MHS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

MICHAEL MUSE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

September 12, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mary Erickson, appointed counsel for Michael Muse in this direct criminal
2

appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation of the appellant

on the ground that the appeal has no arguable merit, and has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Muse’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3811 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3811

   To require notification of individuals of breaches of personally 
identifiable information through Exchanges under the Patient Protection 
                        and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2014

Mr. Pitts (for himself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Bilirakis, Mrs. 
Black, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Calvert, 
  Mr. Campbell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Carter, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Chabot, Mr. 
Collins of Georgia, Mr. Cook, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Culberson, 
 Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mrs. Ellmers, 
Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Flores, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Gerlach, 
   Mr. Gibson, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. 
 Griffith of Virginia, Mr. Hall, Mr. Harper, Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, 
    Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Jones, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. Lance, Mr. Latta, Mr. Long, Mr. McCaul, Mr. 
 McKinley, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Meehan, Mrs. Miller 
of Michigan, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Pompeo, 
 Mr. Radel, Mr. Reed, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Rigell, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, 
Mr. Rokita, Mr. Rothfus, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Stivers, 
 Mr. Terry, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Tiberi, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. 
 Walden, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. 
 Whitfield, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Womack, and Mr. Woodall) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require notification of individuals of breaches of personally 
identifiable information through Exchanges under the Patient Protection 
                        and Affordable Care Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Health Exchange Security and 
Transparency Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS OF BREACHES OF PERSONALLY 
              IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION THROUGH PPACA EXCHANGES.

    Not later than two business days after the discovery of a breach of 
security of any system maintained by an Exchange established under 
section 1311 or 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041) which is known to have resulted in personally 
identifiable information of an individual being stolen or unlawfully 
accessed, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide 
notice of such breach to each such individual.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2023104EN.01004201.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/42

---

Action brought on 7 February 2023 — OSR Entreprises v EUIPO — Möckel and Gramann (evolver)

(Case T-51/23)

(2023/C 104/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: OSR Entreprises AG (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mathias Möckel (Chemnitz, Germany), Torsten Gramann (Chemnitz)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark evolver — EU trade mark No 3 313 335

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2022 in Case R 1302/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and declare EU trade mark No 3 313 335 invalid in respect of all services; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and declare EU trade mark No 3 313 335 invalid in respect of all services;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Failure to have regard for indicative value in the assessment of the evidence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to have regard for indicative value in the assessment of the evidence.

---
J- 59 B-2013 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

IN RE: PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT 

JUDGE CHRISTINE SOLOMON 

 

 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 62 EM 2013 

Petition of the Judicial Conduct Board to 

Stop, Suspend or Stay Proceedings on the 

Rule to Show Cause or, in the Alternative, 

for Permission to Appear, Participate and 

Be Heard at Any Proceedings Before the 

Appointed Master

ARGUED: September 10, 2013

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2014, upon consideration of the Joint 

Application for Leave to File Post-Submission Communication Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

2501(a) filed by the Judicial Conduct Board and Philadelphia Traffic Court Judge 

Christine Solomon, indicating that the Judicial Conduct Board has investigated the 

complaint filed against Judge Solomon and dismissed it with a Letter of Caution, the 

parties’ joint petition is GRANTED, the per curiam orders entered in this matter dated 

May 21, 2013, and July 12, 2013 are VACATED, and the rule issued upon Judge 

Solomon, directing her to show cause why she should not be suspended for ninety 

days, is DISCHARGED. 

 Justice Saylor files a Concurring Statement. 

 Chief Justice Castille files a Dissenting Statement.
# CE2004070EN.01012601.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/126 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/126

---

(2004/C 70 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2655/03

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Euronews

Subject:

Will the Commission say by how much it proposes to subsidise the Euronews television channel and what conditions will be attached to this subsidy? Will the Commission also say what measures will be taken to ensure that Euronews is able retain independence in choosing the substance and form of its reporting?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2003)

(9 October 2003)

The Commission does not award an operating grant to the Euronews television channel, but, as it does with many other radio or television channels, awards grants for actions, either for ad hoc projects or for the ‘coproduction of television modules’ under a framework agreement covering the period 2001-2004. Grants for actions and framework agreements, awarded in accordance with the financial rules in force when they are signed, in no way restrict the editorial freedom of the beneficiary, who must, however, respect the image of the European institutions and the raison d'être and general objectives of the Union.

In addition to these grants Parliament entered a sum of EUR 3 million on line B3-300 of the 2003 budget ‘intended to finance the activities of Euronews in connection with the European institutions’. To give effect to this request and on the basis of the Commission decision of 9 July 2003, Euronews was invited to present a programme of additional actions for which new grants may be awarded. This programme will be assessed by a selection committee in accordance with the arrangements laid down in the Financial Regulation (1) and its implementing rules (2). On the basis of the report of this selection committee, the Commission will decide whether or not to award all or part of the amount earmarked on line Β3-300. If it does so, as generally applies with grants for actions, the editorial freedom of Euronews will be fully respected.

1

2

The decision on continued cooperation with Euronews or any change in the arrangements will be taken in the light of the findings of an evaluation of the channel's Community-funded activities.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

2

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6737

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERESA MAYS, a/k/a Toreatha A. Beaty,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (0:97-cr-00105-CMC-1)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Teresa Mays, Appellant Pro Se. James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Teresa Mays appeals the district court’s order denying

her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion for sentence reduction.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Mays, No. 0:97-cr-00105-CMC-1 (D.S.C. Apr.

24, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina, v. Mitchell Lee FRAZIER, Defendant.

No. COA15-568.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.