alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. (the Company), that to his knowledge:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

This written
statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2006 |  | /s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.               
|                     |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                 
|                     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 
|                     | 
|Date: March 30, 2006 |  | /s/ Edward Escudero                  
|                     |  | (Edward Escudero)                    
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
HOWELL et al. v. WILLIAMS et al.

S17A0309

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: April 17, 2017

**PER CURIAM**.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur, except Justice Boggs, who is disqualified.
MEINCK v. CITY OF GASTONIA

130PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2017

Thomas D. Bumgardner, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Meinck, Joan A.

Martha Raymond Thompson, Attorney at Law, Gastonia, Ryan L. Bostic, Attorney at Law, for City of Gastonia.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 26th of June 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of June 2017."

*423Defendant shall have up to and including the 10th day of August 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
NO. 07-08-0226-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 15, 2008

	______________________________

	VICENTE OCHOA, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 222ND DISTRICT COURT OF DEAF SMITH COUNTY;

	NO. CR-06J-146; HONORABLE ROLAND SAUL, JUDGE

	_______________________________

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

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Appellant, Vicente Ochoa, plead guilty to felony driving while intoxicated in January 2007 and was placed on community supervision.  Appellant’s community supervision was revoked in May 2008.  He now appeals from the revocation of his community supervision and the resulting sentence of five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The trial court filed its certification representing that appellant has the right of appeal.  However, the appellate record reflects that appellant failed to sign the certification, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), which requires the certification to be signed by appellant and a copy served on him.1  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

	Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 222nd District Court of Deaf Smith County for further proceedings.  On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means it finds necessary to secure and file with this Court a certificate of right to appeal that complies with Rule 25.2(d).  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

	If necessary, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and any necessary orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues and cause its findings, conclusions, and orders, if any, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. The trial court shall file the supplemental clerk’s record and the supplemental reporter’s record, if any, with the Clerk of this Court by November 17, 2008. 

	It is so ordered. 

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
STATE of North Carolina v. Konrad Christopher BUTLER, Defendant.

No. COA17-144

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

JUDGMENT ARRESTED IN PART; NO ERROR IN PART.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 24, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10537

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00518-CR-T-27-EAJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

FELICIA Y. SHERROD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(September 24, 2008)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Felicia Sherrod appeals the revocation of her probation. 18 U.S.C.
2

§ 3565(a). Sherrod argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that she

constructively possessed a firearm. We affirm. 

We review a revocation of probation for abuse of discretion. United States

v. Penn, 721 F.2d 762, 766 (11th Cir. 1983). The evidence presented must

establish by a preponderance of the evidence, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), “‘that the

conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of

probation . . . .’” Penn, 721 F.3d at 766 (quoting United States v. Rice, 671 F.2d

455, 458 (11th Cir. 1982)). We accord great deference to a credibility

determination made by the district court. United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412,

413 (11th Cir. 1994).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Sherrod’s

probation. Sherrod told law enforcement that she lived in the bedroom where the

gun was discovered and had lost the key to the safe that contained the gun. 

Although Sherrod’s mother professed ownership of the gun, her story about the

sale conflicted with state handgun laws, and her description of the weapon, the

safe, and its contents was inconsistent with the testimonies of the officers who

searched Sherrod’s residence. 

AFFIRMED.
1564.

#### SMITH *v.*CITY OF ATLANTA.

The judge of the superior court did not err in remanding the case for further action in the mayor’s court.

Certiorari", from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. November 30, 1908.

Argued January 13,

Decided January 27, 1909.

*8. O. Crane,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. L. Mayson, W. P. HUI, C. D. Hill,*.contra.

Powell, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the police court of Atlanta, under a charge of disorderly and immoral conduct and keeping a disorderly house. She brought the case, by certiorari, to the superior court. The judge of that court sustained the certiorari and remanded the ease for further disposition in the police court. The plaintiff in error excepts to so much of the order as remands the case, and insists that the judge of the superior court should have' made a final disposition of the case by discharging the prisoner.

We find no error in this order. It is only when the case is absolutely and finally controlled -by some question of law that the judge of the superior’ court should render final- judgment, in sustaining a certiorari. The judge of the superior court had, of course, the right to grant a new trial; but, under the record, we would not have reversed the judgment if he had refused to plo so. There was evidence that the defendant kept a .disorderly house. Though this is a State offense, nevertheless, under express charter power, *493the police court of Atlanta is authorized to deal with it. *Hood*v. *Von Glahn,*88 *Ga.*413 (14 S. E. 564); Anderson’s Code of Atlanta, §33.

Not only this, but, under the city charter and the general law, ■the recorder is ex-officio a justice of the peace for the purpose of committing defendants for State offenses disclosed in investigations made in the police eouft. Political Code, § 699; Code of Atlanta, §§22, 198, 201, 307, 316. The judge of the superior court was authorized to remand the case, that the city recorder might exercise his jurisdiction in this respect. *Judgment affirmed.*
STATE of North Carolina v. Pashion ELLISON

No. COA16-1127

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

NO ERROR IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Anthony SCATURRO, Jr.

No. 207P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Michele Goldman, Attorney at Law, for Scaturro, Michael Anthony (Jr.).

Anne Goco Kirby, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 24th of July 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION
OF

J. ROE BUCKLEY/ CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 I, J. Roe Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development
Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P.
(the Registrant), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 and filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully complies
with the requirements of that section. I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant. /s/ J. Roe BuckleyName:
    J. Roe BuckleyDate: November 11, 2004 16
# C_2008107EN.01004301.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Allos Walter Lang GmbH v Allos Walter Lang GmbH v OHIM — KOKORIKO (Coco Rico)

(Case T-126/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 107/72)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 10979 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Jacob Josiah Mitchell -**  **Bowlds,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23 - CR - 147 - 1

**________ ______________________**  Before **Davis, Willett,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jacob Josiah Mitchell - Bowlds has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mitchell - Bowlds has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently develop ed to allow us to make a fair evaluation

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 27, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10979 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2024No. 23 - 10979

2 of Mitchell - Bowlds’ s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Mitchell - Bowlds ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate revi ew. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R** . 42.2. Case: 23-10979 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2024
# Official Journal L 74/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 74 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 644 March 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 74

English edition

Legislation

Volume 644 March 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/381 of 25 February 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Escavèche de Chimay’ (PGI)) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/382 of 3 March 2021 amending the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs as regards food allergen management, redistribution of food and food safety culture (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/383 of 3 March 2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council listing co-formulants which are not accepted for inclusion in plant protection products (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/384 of 3 March 2021 on the suitability of the denominations of varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species and repealing Regulation (EC) No 637/2009 (
  1
  ) | 27 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/381 of 25 February 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Escavèche de Chimay’ (PGI))

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/382 of 3 March 2021 amending the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs as regards food allergen management, redistribution of food and food safety culture (
  1
  )

1

3

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/383 of 3 March 2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council listing co-formulants which are not accepted for inclusion in plant protection products (
  1
  )

1

7

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/384 of 3 March 2021 on the suitability of the denominations of varieties of agricultural plant species and vegetable species and repealing Regulation (EC) No 637/2009 (
  1
  )

1

27

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 428 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to report on the cost differences 

between providing school meals and supplements in each of the territories 

of the United States and the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2013 

Mr. SABLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to report on the 

cost differences between providing school meals and supplements in each of the territories of the United States 

and the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘School Meals Reim5 bursement Rates Comparison Act of 2013’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 428 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT. 

2 Not later than April 1, 2014, the Secretary of Agri3 culture shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Ag4 riculture of the House of Representatives and the Com5 mittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Sen6 ate a report on— 

7 (1) the cost differences between— 

8 (A) providing meals and supplements 

9 under the Richard B. Russell National School 

10 Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and section 4 of 

11 the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 

12 1773) in Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, 

13 the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of 

14 the Northern Mariana Islands, respectively; and 

15 (B) the average cost of providing meals 

16 and supplements under such provisions of law 

17 in the 50 States and the District of Columbia; 

18 and 

19 (2) the relation of the cost differences deter20 mined under paragraph (1) to the national average 

21 payment rates for meals and supplements prescribed 

22 under sections 4, 11, 13, and 17 of the Richard B. 

23 Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753, 

24 1759a, 1761, 1766) and section 4(b) of the Child 

25 Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773(b)). 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Blake J. GEOGHAGAN v. Bernadette M. GEOGHAGAN

No. 213P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Bernadette M. Geoghagan, for Geoghagan, Bernadette M.

Tate K. Sterrett, Attorney at Law, Christopher Thomas Hood, Attorney at Law, Kyle Frost, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Horack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes, P.A.

Travis Taylor, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Geoghagan, Blake J.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of June 2017 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
Exhibit 10.64
 AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 Amendment La Jolla Employer Employee
 Agreement
 Board
  1.
    
    Section 3.a(A) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
 Termination; Severance




---



##### 



2.
    
    Section 4(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
  3.
    
    No Other Amendment. Except as otherwise set forth herein, the Agreement shall not be
otherwise amended and remains in full force and effect.




---



##### 



LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANYBy:
    
    /s/ Deirdre Y. Gillespie

Deirdre Y. GillespiePresident & CEOEXECUTIVEMichael Tansey




---



##### 



LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANYBy:
    
    Deirdre Y. GillespiePresident & CEOEMPLOYEE/s/ Michael TanseyMichael Tansey
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00333-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.D., E.D, I.D., and J.D., Children

From the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 111069C

Honorable Spencer W. Brown, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, that portion of the trial court’s order 

terminating appellant’s parental rights is REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED that the 

Department of Family and Protective Services’ petition requesting termination of appellant’s 

parental rights to his four children is denied. 

SIGNED November 22, 2013.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Re: XPO LOGISTICS, INC. v. ANIS

395A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2016

Mr. Brian D. Boone, Mr. Mark T. Calloway, Mr. Michael Hoernlein, Charlotte, Attorneys at Law, For Anis, Fouzi.

Mr. David C. Wright, III, Mr. Douglas M. Jarrell, Charlotte, Attorneys at Law, For XPO Logistics, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 15th of November 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of November 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 13th day of January 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2021462EN.01003902.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Henry Cotton’s Brand Management v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear (Henry Cotton’s)

(Case T-173/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Proceedings for the revocation of decisions or for the cancellation of entries - Cancellation of an entry in the register which contains an obvious error attributable to EUIPO - Trade marks involved in insolvency proceedings - Registration of the transfers of the marks - Effects vis-à-vis third parties of bankruptcy or similar proceedings - Competence of EUIPO - Duty of diligence - Articles 20, 24, 27 and 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Articles 3, 7 and 19 of Regulation (EU) 2015/848)

(2021/C 462/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Henry Cotton’s Brand Management Co. Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt and P. Böhner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Industries Sportswear Co. Srl (Venice, Italy) (represented by: P. Cervato, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 (Joined Cases R 254/2019-2 and R 255/2019-2), relating to proceedings between Industries Sportswear and Henry Cotton’s Brand Management regarding the cancellation of entries in the register.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Henry Cotton’s Brand Management Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Industries Sportswear Co. Srl. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Henry Cotton’s Brand Management Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Industries Sportswear Co. Srl.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---