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

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Thomas J. McCartney, asPresident and Chief Executive Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C. (the “Company”), certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(B)  the information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: August 14,2009

 

 
|   | /S/ Thomas J. McCartney                                              |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Thomas J. McCartney                                                  |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----
State of North Carolina v. Rahmil Ingram

No. COA16-120

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Derek Jack CHOLON

No. 87PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

John F. Carella, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Cholon, Derek Jack.

Alexandra Gruber, Assistant Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**207***ORDER***

Defendant's petition for discretionary review is allowed for the limited purpose of vacating the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanding to that court with instructions for further remand to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion for appropriated relief in light of *State v. Todd* , 369 N.C. 707, ----, 799 S.E. 2d 834, 835 (2017) (remanding for determination of whether counsel made a particular strategic decision and if so, whether such decision was reasonable), *State v. Thomas* , 327 N.C. 630, 630, 397 S.E.2d 79, 80 (1990) (remanding to determine whether the "defendant knowingly consented to trial counsel's concessions of guilt to the jury"), and other relevant authority. The trial court shall enter findings of facts and conclusions of law and determine whether defendant is entitled to relief.:

"By order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
Exhibit 32

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 Universal Biosensors, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does 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 such officers knowledge:



| | (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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. The undersigned
have executed this Certificate as of the 31st day of January 2012 .
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul WrightPaul WrightPrincipal Executive Officer/s/ Salesh BalakSalesh BalakPrincipal Financial Officer




|* | This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not
be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent such certification is explicitly incorporated by reference in such filing.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3938 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to designate natural gas fueling 

corridors in the United States for long haul truck traffic, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2014 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri (for himself and Mr. TERRY) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to designate natural gas fueling corridors in the United States for long 

haul truck traffic, 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. DESIGNATION OF NATURAL GAS FUELING COR4 RIDORS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation, 

6 in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and affected 

7 States, shall designate natural gas fueling corridors in the 

8 United States for long haul truck traffic. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3938 IH

1 (b) DESIGNATION PROCESS.—In designating natural 

2 gas fueling corridors under subsection (a), the Secretary 

3 shall— 

4 (1) seek to establish an interconnection of nat5 ural gas fueling stations across the United States 

6 that will serve the highest possible volume of long 

7 haul truck traffic; 

8 (2) take into consideration the location of exist9 ing natural gas fueling stations, with the goal of 

10 having natural gas fueling stations located not 

11 greater than 200 miles apart in such corridors; and 

12 (3) provide public notice and an opportunity for 

13 comment. 

14 (c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year 

15 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 

16 submit to Congress a report containing a description of 

17 the natural gas fueling corridors designated under sub18 section (a), together with an explanation for the selection 

19 of the corridors. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
State v. Camellia Brown

353P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Ms. Camellia Brown, Pro Se.

Ms. Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of September 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
# C_2009019EN.01000802.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat — France) — Société Papillon v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique

(Case C-418/07) (1)

1

(Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Corporation tax - Group taxation regime - Resident parent company - Resident sub-subsidiaries held through a non-resident subsidiary)

(2009/C 19/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Papillon

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) — Interpretation of Articles 43 and 48 EC — Restriction on freedom of establishment and possible justification for a tax scheme making a distinction depending on whether the French sub-subsidiary of a parent company (also established in France) is held through a subsidiary established in that Member State or established in another Member State and not subject to French corporation tax — Justification based on the coherence of the tax system

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State by virtue of which a group tax regime is made available to a parent company which is resident in that Member State and holds subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries which are also resident in that State, but is unavailable to such a parent company if its resident sub-subsidiaries are held through a subsidiary which is resident in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
CMF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0733

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

TOBY CARL McADAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s late motion for a 6-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including May 11, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 11 2020

05/11/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0733
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------

                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-08617) pertaining to the Integ Incorporated 1990 Incentive and Stock
Option Plan, the 1991 Incentive and Stock Option Plan, and the 1996 Directors'
Stock Option Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-66225) pertaining to
the 1994 Long-Term Incentive and Stock Option Plan, and Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-42921) pertaining to the 1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
our report dated February 17, 2000, with respect to the financial statements of
Integ Incorporated, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1999.



                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March  27, 2000
NO. 07-08-0089-CR	

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 7, 2008

	______________________________

	BILLIE DEAN RANDOLPH, APPELLANT

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. A16933-0609; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, Billie Dean Randolph, pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, of less than one gram.  Appellant was sentenced to a term of one year in a state jail and a fine of $750.00.  The term of confinement and fine were suspended and appellant was placed on community supervision for a period of one year.  The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision.  Appellant pled “true” to five violations of his community supervision and “not true” to two allegations.  The trial court found all seven allegations to be true and sentenced appellant to confinement in a state jail facility for a period of one year and further, that appellant pay the original fine in the amount of $750.00.  This appeal followed.  We affirm.

	Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744- 45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response.  Appellant has filed a response, however, the response raises no grounds that are not frivolous.1

	By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

	Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.2

							Mackey K. Hancock

							          Justice

Do not publish.
# C_2009282EN.01006402.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/64

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-122/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Request for investigation - Refusal of an institution to translate a decision into the language chosen by the applicant - Manifest inadmissibility - Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2009/C 282/121

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to grant the applicant’s request that an investigation be carried out in relation to certain events which occurred during the period when the applicant was assigned to its delegation in Angola — Request that findings of investigation be communicated — Annulment of decision not to translate a note into the language chosen by the applicant — Application for damages.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Tribunal:

| 1. | dismisses Mr Marcuccio’s action as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and in part, as lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses Mr Marcuccio’s action as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and in part, as lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | orders Mr Marcuccio to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Marcuccio to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64 of 08.03.2008, p. 65

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6849

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ARLINGTON ASHLEY, a/k/a Arlington Efrain Ashley,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, 

District Judge. (4:10-cr-00088-RAJ-TEM-1; 4:13-cv-00135-RAJ)

Submitted: December 5, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arlington Ashley, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arlington Ashley seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Ashley 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 December 2007 – Commission v Sweden**

**(Case C‐258/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/18/EC – Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Non-transposition within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4192 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to regulate the height 

of buildings in the District of Columbia’’ to clarify the 

rules of the District of Columbia regarding human occupancy of penthouses above the top story of the building 

upon which the penthouse is placed. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4192 EH

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF RULES APPLYING TO 

2 HUMAN OCCUPANCY OF PENTHOUSES IN DIS3 TRICT OF COLUMBIA BUILDINGS. 

4 (a) PERMITTING HUMAN OCCUPANCY OF PENT5 HOUSES WITHIN CERTAIN HEIGHT LIMIT.—The eighth 

6 paragraph of section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to regu7 late the height of buildings in the District of Columbia’’, 

8 approved June 1, 1910 (sec. 6–601.05(h), D.C. Official 

9 Code) is amended— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘penthouses over elevator 

11 shafts,’’ and inserting ‘‘penthouses,’’; and 

12 (2) by striking ‘‘and no floor or compartment 

13 thereof shall be constructed or used for human occu14 pancy above the top story of the building upon which 

15 such structures are placed’’ and inserting ‘‘and, ex16 cept in the case of a penthouse which is erected to 

17 a height of one story of 20 feet or less above the 

18 level of the roof, no floor or compartment thereof 

19 shall be constructed or used for human occupancy 

20 above the top story of the building upon which such 

21 structures are placed’’. 
3 

•HR 4192 EH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact3 ment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4192 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to regulate the 

penthouse is placed. the top story of the building upon which the regarding human occupancy of penthouses above to clarify the rules of the District of Columbia height of buildings in the District of Columbia’’
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Amended notice (due to tropical storm Rita). 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). 

The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 27, 2005, from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. ET. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Inez E. De Jesus at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7977. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10 (a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, September 27, 2005 from 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. ET via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write Inez E. De Jesus, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Inez E. De Jesus. Ms. De Jesus can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. 

Dated: September 20, 2005. 

Martha Curry, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. 05-19220 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P