alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 11, 2004



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 11, 2004
# Official Journal L 21/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 21 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6422 January 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 21

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6422 January 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2021/47 of 21 January 2021 replacing a member of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2021/47 of 21 January 2021 replacing a member of the panel provided for in Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

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.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00802-CV

Mayukh Suri, Appellant

v.

Richa Gulati, Appellee

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-19-001937, THE HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Mayukh Suri has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss his appeal, stating that he 

no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: December 18, 2019
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2008 – Galderma v OHIM – Lelas (Nanolat)**

**(Case T-6/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark Nanolat – Earlier national word mark TANNOLACT – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49-50)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2006 (Case R 146/2006-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Galderma SA and Mr Tihomir Lelas. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Tihomir Lelas |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark Nanolat for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 – Application No 3088986 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Galderma SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | German Word mark TANNOLACT for goods in Class 5 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejection of the opposition |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Galderma SA to pay the costs. |
William Kelly, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 3, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 11, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Brian M. Gibbons be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Gibbons shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Gibbons shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
STATE of North Carolina v. Marian Olivia CURTIS

No. 441PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Timothy J. Rohr, Attorney at Law, Lenoir, for Curtis, Marian Olivia.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 6th of December 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of January 2017 by State of NC 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
# L_2008113EN.01002301.xml

| 25.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 113/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 113/23

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2237/77 of 23 September 1977 amending Regulation No 118/66/EEC on the form of farm return to be used for the purpose of determining incomes of agricultural holdings

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 263 of 17 October 1977, p. 1
  )

Official Journal of the European Communities L 263 of 17 October 1977, p. 1

In the Contents on the cover and on page 1 in the title:

for:

read:

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Daniel MYLETT

No. 165P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Kevin G. Mahoney, Assistant Attorney General, Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Laura M. Cobb, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Mylett, Daniel.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of May 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4197 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 506
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4197

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             July 31, 2014

               Reported by Mr. Carper, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the period of certain 
 authority with respect to judicial review of Merit Systems Protection 
  Board decisions relating to whistleblowers, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``All Circuit Review Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD DECISIONS 
              RELATING TO WHISTLEBLOWERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7703(b)(1)(B) of title 5, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``5-year''.
    (b) Director Review.--Section 7703(d)(2) of such title is amended 
by striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``5-year''.
                                                       Calendar No. 506

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4197

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the period of certain 
 authority with respect to judicial review of Merit Systems Protection 
  Board decisions relating to whistleblowers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 31, 2014

                       Reported without amendment
```
<PAGE>



                                                                    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 Annual Report of Northfield Laboratories Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack J.
Kogut, 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) 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.


          Date: August 13, 2004                  /s/ Jack J. Kogut
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Jack J. Kogut
                                                 Senior Vice President and Chief
                                                 Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION     I, Charles A. Casalinova, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WCA Waste Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) [Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-47986];          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  November 8, 2005 /s/ Charles A. Casalinova   Charles A. Casalinova   Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 2, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30196

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES WESLEY WHITE,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-60035-ALL

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, EMILO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Wesley White appeals from his jury-verdict conviction

for three counts of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to

commit bank fraud. White has filed a motion seeking leave to

submit a pro se supplemental appeal brief. As there is no right to

hybrid representation in a direct criminal appeal, White’s motion

is DENIED. See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n.1

(5th Cir. 1999); see also 5TH CIR. R. 28.7. 
No. 03-30196

-2-

White contends that the district court erred by failing to

make a specific finding that the individuals supervised by White

were criminally responsible participants in the criminal activity

for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The district court was not

required to make such a specific finding. See United States v.

Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216, 220-21 (5th Cir. 1989).

White also argues that the district court erred by applying a

two-level adjustment to his sentence for his role as a supervisor

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) because the individuals he

supervised were not criminally responsible participants in the

criminal activity. Because White failed to raise this argument in

district court, the issue is reviewed only for plain error. See

United States v. Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1994).

As this issue involves a factual question that was capable of

resolution by the district court, it cannot constitute plain error.

See United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50-51 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4317 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require disclosure to 

States of the basis of determinations under such Act, to ensure use 

of information provided by State, tribal, and county governments in 

decisionmaking under such Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2014 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER (for himself, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mrs. LUMMIS, 

Mr. AMODEI, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, and Mr. VALADAO) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require 

disclosure to States of the basis of determinations under 

such Act, to ensure use of information provided by State, 

tribal, and county governments in decisionmaking under 

such Act, 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 ‘‘State, Tribal, and 

5 Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4317 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING DECISIONAL TRANSPARENCY WITH AF2 FECTED STATES. 

3 Section 6(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

4 (16 U.S.C. 1535(a)) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before the first sentence; 

6 and 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘Such cooperation shall include’’ 

8 and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘(2) Such cooperation shall include— 

10 ‘‘(A) before making a determination under sec11 tion 4(a), providing to States affected by such deter12 mination all data that is the basis of the determina13 tion; and 

14 ‘‘(B)’’. 

15 SEC. 3. ENSURING USE OF STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL IN16 FORMATION. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 of the Endangered Spe18 cies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended— 

19 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through 

20 (21) as paragraphs (3) through (22), respectively; 

21 and 

22 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol23 lowing: 

24 ‘‘(2) The term ‘best scientific and commercial data 

25 available’ includes all such data submitted by a State, trib26 al, or county government.’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4317 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 7(n) of 

2 such Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(n)) is amended by striking 

3 ‘‘section 3(13)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 3(14)’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Cynthia Ann STRICKLAND v. Stephen Glenn HOOD

No. 129P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Leonard G. Kornberg, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Strickland, Cynthia Ann.

Kenneth Davies, Attorney at Law, for Hood, Stephen Glenn.

Madeline Trilling, Attorney at Law.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 20th of April 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision 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 17th of August 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. David Charles LANE

No. 193P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lane, David Charles.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, *163filed by the Defendant on the 14th of June 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of June 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
**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**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                    |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | /s/ Tom              J. Fatjo, Jr.                 |   |
|   |   | Tom                J. Fatjo, Jr.                   |   |
|   |   | Chief              Executive              Officer  |   |
|   |   | November              7, 2007                           |   |

*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.*