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




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
      J.
      Stewart Asbury III, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of Adera Mines Ltd. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended July
      31,
      2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Adera Mines Ltd.








*Dated:
                September 19, 2006*
            */s/
                J. Stewart Asbury III**By:
                J. Stewart Asbury III,**Chief
                Executive Officer and President*










I,
      Clayton Woodrum, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of Adera Mines Ltd. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended July
      31,
      2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Adera Mines Ltd.








*Dated:
                September19, 2006*
            */s/
                Clayton Woodrum**By:
                Clayton Woodrum,**Chief
                Financial Officer*
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF KPMG LLP


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
Alternative Resources Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-88918, 33-85078 and 333-12693) on Form S-8 of Alternative Resources
Corporation of our reports dated February 8, 1999, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Alternative Resources Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, comprehensive income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998,
which report is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1998 annual report
on Form 10-K of Alternative Resources Corporation.

We also consent to the use of our report on the related consolidated financial
statement schedule dated February 8, 1999 included herein.


                                            /s/ KPMG LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 31, 1999
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 25, 2018

No. 04-18-00501-CV

Cecilia A. SANCHEZ,

Appellant

v.

Vicky Brigida ESQUIVEL & Javier Esquivel,

Appellees

 Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. SC18-009

Honorable Jim Bob Barrera Senior, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant filed a notice of appeal in this court seeking to appeal a judgment entered by a 

justice court. This court does not have jurisdiction to consider a direct appeal from a justice 

court. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 506 (providing for appeal to county court). It is therefore ORDERED 

that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days from the date of this order why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
# C_2011269EN.01004203.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Unipetrol v Commission

(Case T-45/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Participation in the cartel - Imputability of the offending conduct - Fines)

2011/C 269/93

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unipetrol a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Matějček and I. Janda, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: M. Kellerbauer, V. Bottka and O. Weber, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer, V. Bottka and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, so far as Unipetrol a.s. is concerned, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) or, in the alternative, for the exercise of the General Court’s unlimited jurisdiction.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it concerns Unipetrol a.s.; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it concerns Unipetrol a.s.;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>
 
                                    Exhibit 23
                        Consent of Independent Auditors


                     [Letterhead of CRISP HUGHES EVANS LLP]



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                                        
                                        
                                        
                                        
     We have issued our report dated August 14, 1998, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements of South Carolina Community Bancshares, Inc.
and Subsidiary and schedules included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ending June 30, 1998. We consent to the incorporation by reference of
said report in the Registration Statement of South Carolina Community
Bancshares, Inc on Form S-8, (File No. 333-31545, effective July 18, 1997).



                                      \s\ CRISP HUGHES EVANS LLP
                                      --------------------------
                                      CRISP HUGHES EVANS LLP



Asheville, North Carolina
September 23, 1998
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM ABBOTT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 529 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of March, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-367-CV

RAIMUNDO VIEIRA AND JOAO BOSCO MONTEIRO APPELLANTS

V.

MOTEL 6 OPERATING, L.P. APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

----------

We have considered appellants’ “Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice.”

It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellants, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 2, 2008
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of UAP Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the twenty-six week period ended August 27, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, David W. Bullock, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 5, 2006



|    |  |                             
|--- |  | ----------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ David W. Bullock        
|    |  | David W. Bullock            
|    |  | Executive Vice President and
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer     
|    |  | Principal Financial Officer
Wray v. City of Greensboro

255A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 10, 2016

Kenneth R. Keller, Attorney at Law, Mark K. York, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Wray, David.

Alan W. Duncan, Attorney at Law, Stephen M. Russell, Jr., Attorney at Law, Patrick M. Kane, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for City of Greensboro.

Lorin J. Lapidus, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Associate General Counsel, for N.C. League of Municipalities.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of August 2016 by N.C. League of Municipalities for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of August 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within *15the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
YAHUDAH WASHITAW OF EAST TERRA INDIANS, et al. v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al.

117P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 03, 2017

Shawn Singletary, for Yahudah Washitaw of East Terra Indians, et al.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

*752The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of April 2017 by Petitioners for Removal from State Court:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
NO. 07-08-0362-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 9, 2008

	______________________________

	In the Interest of A.J.B. and A.K.B., Children

	______________________________

	FROM THE 237th DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 93-543,112; HON. SAM MEDINA, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Appellant Mark David Bural appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his minor children A.J.B. and A.K.B.  On September 25, 2008, the clerk’s record was filed.  The reporter’s record was due on September 23, 2008.  No extension motion or record was filed.  On September 30, 2008, this court directed the court reporter by letter “to advise the Court of the status of the reporter’s record on or before October 10, 2007."  In response, the court received an audio version of the hearing without a transcribed copy.

	Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 237th District Court of Lubbock County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:

	1.  if there is a reporter’s record that can be transcribed in written form and, if so;

	2.  when the reporter’s record can reasonably be transcribed into written form and filed in a manner that does not further delay the prosecution of this appeal or have the practical effect of depriving the appellant of his right to appeal.

	The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed.  So too shall it 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s record containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing in this matter, and 3) cause to be developed a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the aforementioned hearing, if any.  Additionally, the district court shall then file the supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records transcribing the hearing with the clerk of this court on or before October 24, 2008.  Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before October 24, 2008.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Jeremy Bruns and Jenny Bruns v. Rhonda Bryant, Dalton Bryant, Sr., Dalton Bryant, Jr., Pat McCrory, as Governor of North Carolina, Frank Perry, as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Anthony Tata, as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Veronica McClain, USAA, and State of North Carolina

No. 282P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016.

Jenny Bruns, for Bruns, Jeremy, et al.

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas M. Woodward, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina, et al.

John I. Malone, Jr., Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for USAA.

Philip H. Cheatwood, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Bryant, Dalton (Jr.).

*520***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 1st of August 2016 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina 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 18th of August 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 1st of August 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 406 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 406

To provide discretionary authority to an immigration judge to determine 
  that an alien parent of a United States citizen child should not be 
     ordered removed, deported, or excluded from the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2013

 Mr. Serrano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide discretionary authority to an immigration judge to determine 
  that an alien parent of a United States citizen child should not be 
     ordered removed, deported, or excluded from the United States.

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

SECTION 1. DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO REMOVAL, 
              DEPORTATION, OR EXCLUSION OF PARENTS OF CITIZEN CHILDREN.

    Section 240(c)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1229a(c)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) Discretion of judge in case of citizen 
                child.--In the case of an alien subject to removal, 
                deportation, or exclusion who is the parent of a child 
                who is a citizen of the United States, the immigration 
                judge may exercise discretion to decline to order the 
                alien removed, deported or excluded from the United 
                States if the judge determines that such removal, 
                deportation, or exclusion is clearly against the best 
                interests of the child, except that this subparagraph 
                shall not apply to any alien who the judge determines--
                            ``(i) is described in section 212(a)(3) or 
                        237(a)(4); or
                            ``(ii) has engaged in conduct described in 
                        paragraph (8) or (9) of section 103 of the 
                        Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 
                        U.S.C. 7102).''.
                                 <all>
```
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 31 January 2006         

concerning a financial contribution by the Community for the implementation of an epidemiological survey and bluetongue surveillance measures in the context of the emergency measures taken to combat this disease in Portugal in 2004 and 2005

(notified under document number C(2006) 166)

(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)

(2006/78/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 3(2a) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Granting of a financial contribution from the Community to Portugal

1.   In the context of the emergency measures taken to combat bluetongue in 2004 and 2005, Portugal shall be entitled to a financial contribution from the Community amounting to 50 % of the expenditure incurred for the costs of the laboratory tests for serological and virological surveillance and for the costs of entomological surveillance, including the purchase of traps.

2.   The maximum amounts of the costs to be reimbursed to Portugal for the tests and the traps referred to in paragraph 1 shall not exceed:

3.   The financial contribution from the Community shall exclude value added tax.

Article 2

Payment arrangements

Subject to the results of the on-the-spot checks carried out in accordance with Article 9(1) of Decision 90/424/EEC, an initial instalment of EUR 600 000 shall be paid, as part of the Community financial contribution provided for in Article 1.

That payment shall be made on the basis of supporting documents submitted by Portugal relating to the laboratory tests and the purchase of traps referred to in Article 1(1).

Article 3

Payment conditions and supporting documents

1.   The financial contribution from the Community as referred to in Article 1 shall be paid on the basis of:

The documents referred to in point (b) shall be made available for on-the-spot checks referred to in point (c).

2.   The application referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be submitted in computerised form within sixty calendar days following the date of notification of this Decision. If that time limit is not observed, the financial contribution from the Community shall be reduced by 25 % for every month of delay.

Article 4

Addressee

This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

Done at Brussels, 31 January 2006.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19. Decision as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 244, 20.9.2005, p. 28.

(3)OJ L 130, 24.5.2005, p. 22. Decision as last amended by Decision 2005/828/EC (OJ L 311, 26.11.2005, p. 37).

(4)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 103.

----

ANNEX

Data referred to in Article 3(1)(a)

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Phillip Vance SMITH, II

No. 407P03-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Phillip Vance Smith, II, for Smith, Phillip Vance, II.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st of March 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of March 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                                                   Year Ended
                                                                                                December 31, 1997
                                                                                                -----------------
                                                                                              (Dollars in Thousands)
EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
<S>                                                                                              <C>
  Net Income available to common shareholders                                                      $     7,527
                                                                                                   ===========
  Weighted average common shares outstanding                                                         5,150,401
                                                                                                   ===========

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE                                                                                $1.46
                                                                                                         =====


EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE ASSUMING DILUTION

  Net Income available to common shareholders                                                      $     7,527
                                                                                                   ===========

  Weighted average common shares outstanding                                                         5,150,401

  Add: Dilutive effects of assumed exercises of stock options and warrants                             458,659
                                                                                                   -----------

  Weighted average common and dilutive potential common shares outstanding                           5,609,060
                                                                                                   ===========

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE ASSUMING DILUTION                                                              $1.34
                                                                                                         =====
</TABLE>