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





CLEAN
POWER TECHNOLOGIES INC.





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 on Form 10-Q of Clean Power Technologies
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Abdul Mitha,  as President and Principal Executive
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:





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





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





Date:
      January 14, 2009
                By:
                /s/Abdul
      MithaName:
      Abdul MithaTitle:
      President (Principal Executive Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the
United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United
States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1828

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHN F. JACKSON, 

 Claimant - Appellant, 

 v. 

APPROXIMATELY $8,565.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY; ONE 1999 GMC 

YUKON DENALI VIN NUMBER 1GKEK13R6XR917440; ASSORTED TIRES; 

ASSORTED CUSTOM TIRE RIMS, 

 Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, 

District Judge. (5:06-cv-00015-sgw) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John F. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, Thomas Linn 

Eckert, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

 John F. Jackson appeals the district court’s final 

order entering judgment in the Government’s favor after it 

granted the Government partial summary judgment in its 

forfeiture action against Jackson, thereby forfeiting seized 

currency and a vehicle to the United States.* Finding no error, 

we affirm. 

 This Court reviews a district court’s order granting 

summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the 

light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Hooven-Lewis 

v. Caldera, 249 F.3d 259, 265 (4th Cir. 2001). Summary judgment 

may be granted only when “there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment will 

be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for 

the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. See Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). 

 Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 983(c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 

2008), the Government must demonstrate by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the property sought is subject to forfeiture. Id. 

Furthermore, § 983(c)(3) provides that “if the Government’s 

 *

The Government’s remaining claims were eventually disposed 

of by the parties and are not at issue on appeal. 

3 
4 

theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or 

facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved 

in the commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall 

establish that there was a substantial connection between the 

property and the offense.” Id. After reviewing the record, we 

conclude that the district court did not err in finding that 

Jackson’s vehicle facilitated unlawful drug activity and that 

the currency found constitutes proceeds of unlawful drug 

activity. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s final 

judgment. 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
Exhibit 14.2




Grant Thornton Argentina




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We have issued our report dated March 29, 2011, with respect to the financial statements of Pointer Localizacion y Asistencia S.A.; such report has been  included in the Annual Report of Pointer Telocation Ltd., on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Pointer Telocation Ltd., on Forms F-3 (No. 333-111019, effective October 13, 2004, 333-119998, effective November 17, 2004, 333-126257, effective July 15, 2005, and 333-143399 effective October 17, 2007) and on Forms S-8 (No. 333-118897, effective September 10, 2004 333-113420, effective March 9, 2004, 333-141306, effective March 15, 2007 and 333-139717 effective December 29, 2006).





/s/ GRANT THORNTON ARGENTINA S.C.





Buenos Aires, Argentina


March 29, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection  with this Quarterly  Report of Sew Cal Logo, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2006, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Richard Songer,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.    Such  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2006,
      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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
      period  ending  February  28,  2006,  fairly  presents,  in  all  material
      respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of Sew Cal
      Logo, Inc.

Dated: July 24, 2006

                                        SEW CAL LOGO, INC.

                                        By:  /s/ Richard Songer
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Chief Executive Officer
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 Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.  Date: September 15, 2014  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00465-CV

IN THE MATTER OF J.M.

From the 386th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-JUV-03260

Honorable Laura Parker, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 22, 2008

DISMISSED AS MOOT

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order of adjudication following a plea of true to a

motion to modify disposition in a juvenile matter. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes the appeal has

no merit. Counsel provided appellant with a copy of the brief and informed her of her right to review

the record and file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996,

no pet.). Counsel also filed a letter with this court stating the appeal would become moot on August

23, 2008, the date on which appellant turns eighteen years of age. Accordingly, on August 12, 2008,

we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Appellant did

not respond. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as moot. See In re L.S., 04-07-00751-CV, 2008 WL
04-08-00465-CV

-2-

2923855 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 30, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(dismissing as moot juvenile appeal from order modifying disposition when juvenile passed

eighteenth birthday during pendency of appeal). Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns 924 S.W.2d at 177 n. 1.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE YEAR
ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-K FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         61,878
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  16,149
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (788)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               80,828
<PP&E>                                         13,388
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,354)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,508
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       40,368
<OTHER-SE>                                     (16,960)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,562
<SALES>                                        36,067
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               50,911
<CGS>                                          1,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               39,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,960
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,960
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,039
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.16
        


</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 18/23 J

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 18 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4923 January 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 18

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4923 January 2006

---

| Contents | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | European Central Bank |
| | * | Guideline of the European Central Bank of 30 December 2005 on a Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system (TARGET) (ECB/2005/16) | 1 |

Contents

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

page

European Central Bank

*

Guideline of the European Central Bank of 30 December 2005 on a Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system (TARGET) (ECB/2005/16)

ECB/2005/16

1

| 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6390

RONALD COSBY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate

Judge. (3:07-cv-00166-MHL)

Submitted: August 27, 2008 Decided: October 6, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Cosby, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Cosby seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s*

order 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 Cosby

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
State v. William Edward Godwin, III

167PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 10, 2017

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Godwin, William Edward (III).

Teresa L. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 10th of January 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of January 2017."

Plaintiff-Appellant shall have up to and including the 18th day of January 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2009032EN.01003201.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Vitro Corporativo v OHIM — VKR Holding (Vitro)

(Case T-295/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Vitro - Earlier Community word mark VITRAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/59)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV (Garza García, Nuevo Léon, Mexico) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: VKR Holding A/S (Søborg, Denmark)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2007 (Case R 1640/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between VKR Holding A/S and Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Vitro Corporativo, SA de CV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
# C_2008079EN.01000901.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-259/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/51/EC - Public procurement - Procedure for the award of public contracts - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 79/15)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Kukovec and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement (OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

1

---
Exhibit
32.2
  Certification
Pursuant to
 18
U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As
Adopted Pursuant to
 Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of WCA Waste Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Charles A. Casalinova, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and
  (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
  By:
                /s/ Charles
      A. CasalinovaCharles
      A. CasalinovaChief
      Financial OfficerNovember
      6, 2008
   The
foregoing certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
----

Status of EC accession to UN/ECE regulations in the area of vehicle approval as of 31 December 2004

(2005/C 188/04)

The Commission publishes hereafter a table summarising the state of UN/ECE regulations as last amended (annexed in the 1958 Agreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions) to which the EC has acceded as of 31 December 2004.

----

(1)  This column lists the latest amendment to the Regulation concerned that the European Communities has acceded to by 31.12.2004. Some of the more recent series of amendments or supplements to the series of amendments will enter into force after that date. The date of entry into force of these amendments should be checked in the latest version of the UN-ECE status document TRANS/WP.29/343/Rev.xx, available at:

http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29fdocstts.html.

(2)  All relevant corrigenda up until 31/12/2004 have also been adopted, unless otherwise indicated.

(3)  This Regulation has not entered into force as of 31.12.2004.

----