alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.01





CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Peter
Hill, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Triangle Petroleum Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October
31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Triangle Petroleum
Corporation.




By:
                  /s/    PETER
      HILLDate:
      December 7, 2010
                  Name:
                  Peter
      HillTitle:
                  Chief Executive Officer




I, Jon
Samuels, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
of Triangle Petroleum Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
October 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Triangle Petroleum
Corporation.




By:
                  /s/    JON
      SAMUELSDate:
      December 7, 2010
                  Name:
                  Jon
      SamuelsTitle:
                  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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40260

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RONALD GENE SPEIGHTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

No. 1:06-CR-106-1

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Speights argues that his case should be remanded to allow the district court to consider a sentence reduction as a result of Amendment 706 to the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 14, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40260

2

United States Sentencing Guidelines. The government responds that this appeal is barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in the plea agreement. We

review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. See United States v. Baymon,

312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). 

The record shows that Speights’s waiver was knowing and voluntary, and

he has not raised an issue on appeal that falls within the exceptions to the waiver. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,

the waiver bars review of the sentence.

Speights can pursue a reduction in sentence in the district court pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. We express no opinion on the

viability of such relief as it pertains to Speights.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.01




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Tom Hofer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Vendalux Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the Annual period ended March 31, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Vendalux Corporation.

By:       /s/
   ------------------------------
Name: Tom Hofer
Title:   Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be
retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
William S. CREWS, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Nysa Marinda PAYSOUR, Defendant.

No. COA16-604

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

VACATED AND REMANDED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3987 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

any prizes or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2014 

Mr. FARENTHOLD (for himself, Mr. JONES, and Mr. SESSIONS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income any prizes or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games. 

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 ‘‘Tax Exemptions for 

5 American Medalists Act of 2014’’ or the ‘‘TEAM Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OLYMPIC MEDALS AND USOC PRIZE MONEY EX7 CLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 74 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new subsection: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3987 IH

1 ‘‘(d) EXCEPTION FOR OLYMPIC MEDALS AND

2 PRIZES.—Gross income shall not include the value of any 

3 medal awarded in, or any prize money received from the 

4 United States Olympic Committee on account of, competi5 tion in the Olympic Games.’’. 

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

7 this section shall apply to prizes and awards received after 

8 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
State v. Damario Montreal Coxton

121P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, For Coxton, Damario Montreal.

Mr. David Elliott, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of September 2016 by Defendant-Appellant to Deem Petition for Discretionary Review Timely Filed:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
# C_2009090EN.01003803.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/38

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2009 — Red Bull v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (TORO)

(Case T-165/07) (1)

1

2009/C 90/60

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7142

BOSY AKEIVA BOYD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary NC; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-04-465) Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 4, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bosy Akeiva Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bosy Akeiva Boyd, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistratejudge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial 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 his constitutional claims are debatable, and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Boyd 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
SOMA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. DALAMAGAS, et al.

307P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 26, 2017

Sam McGee, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Desai, Hiren.

Daniel F.E. Smith, Attorney at Law, Robert J. King, III, Attorney at Law, Jonathan M. Shapiro, Attorney at Law, for Soma Technology, Inc.

Paul J. Stevens, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Dalamagas, Photios, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of September 2017 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Discretionary Review Prior to a Determination of NC Court of Appeals:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of September 2017."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 26th day of October, 2017 to Respond to Petition for Discretionary Review.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41014 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RENE GARCIA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-135-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 12, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rene Garcia-Perez appeals his sentence following a guilty plea for reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Perez argues that he could not be sentenced under § 1326(b) because the indictment did not allege that he had a prior felony conviction. His argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943, 945-47 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
# C_2008209EN.01005002.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/50

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Lancôme v OHIM — CMS Hasche Sigle (COLOR EDITION)

(Case T-160/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark COLOR EDITION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 55 of Regulation No 40/94)

(2008/C 209/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: CMS Hasche Sigle (Cologne, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2007 (Case R 231/2006-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between CMS Hasche Sigle and Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
In the MATTER OF: D.M.P., JR.

No. COA17-297

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED and Stafford Land Company, Inc. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE

No. 315PA15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

James E. Scarbrough, Attorney at Law, James R. DeMay, Attorney at Law, Concord, John F. Scarborough, Attorney at Law, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

Susan K. Burkhart, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Town of Carthage.

Stephen D. Feldman, Attorney at Law, Paul M. Cox, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Steven A. Scoggan, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, F. Paul Calamita, III, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Water Quality Association and Seven Municipalities.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of February 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 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).
STATE of North Carolina v. David Campbell SUTTON

No. 62P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

David C. Sutton, Greenville, Erika Sutton, for Sutton, David Campbell.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 21st of February 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 21st of February 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-3285

JOSEPH P. CARSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in consolidated cases

AT1221960948-C-7, AT1221980250-C-7, and ATT1221980623-C-7.

ON MOTION

Before MOORE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER 

The Department of Energy moves for leave to file a corrected brief. Joseph P.

Carson moves for an extension of time to file his reply brief and moves to strike portions

of the agency's revised brief that he asserts are irrelevant. In the alternative, Carson

opposes the agency's motion for leave to file a corrected brief. The Department

opposes Carson's motion to strike. Carson moves for leave to file a surreply. The

Department opposes. Carson replies.

We deem the better course is for Carson to put any arguments concerning the

agency's brief in his reply brief.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1)	The Department of Energy's motion is granted.
Carson's motion to strike is denied.

Carson's motion for an extension of time is granted. Carson's reply brief

is due within 14 days of the filing of this order.

(4)	Carson's motion for leave to file a surreply is denied.

FOR THE COURT

MAR 19 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Jan Horbaly

Clerk	 FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc:	Joseph P. Carson

Roger A. Hipp, Esq.	

MAR 1 9 2009

s20	

ihiv	iL4ii-1

acid(

Date

2008-3285	 2
Jennifer RITTELMEYER v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

No. 136P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

M. Travis Payne, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Rittelmeyer, Jennifer.

*386Kimberly D. Potter, Special Deputy Attorney General, for University of North Carolina At Chapel Hill.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of April 2017 by Petitioner 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."
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 6, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 00240

- CV

Michael McDermott, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas; Eduardo Espinosa, Temporary Receiver of Retirement Value, LLC; and Donald Taylor, Temporary Re ceiver of Hill Country Funding, LLC, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON AND ROSE

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT ’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

THIS DAY came to be submitted appellant ’ s motion t o dismiss the appeal in the above cause,

and the Court having fully considered said motion is of the opinion that same should be granted

.

IT IS THEREFORE ordered that said motion is granted and that the appeal is dismissed. It is

FURTHER ordered that the appellant p ay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and

the court below

, and that this decision be certified below for observance.
* 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

July 1, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41674

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANGEL ROMERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-349-1

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Angel Romero on appeal has

filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Romero filed no response. 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. 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.
**Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission**

**(Case T-232/06)**

Public service contracts – Tendering procedure – Provision of services for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects
– Rejection of a tender – Award of the contract to another tenderer – Action for damages – Disregard of the procedural requirements – Inadmissibility – Action for annulment – Time allowed for the receipt of tenders – Time allowed for the submission of requests for information – Equal treatment – Manifest error of assessment

1.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute
– Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Action seeking compensation for damage caused by an
EU institution – No indications as to the character and extent of the damage and the causal link – Inadmissibility (Rules
of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 30-32)*

2.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Determination of the time allowed for the submission of requests
for additional information – Time-limit for receipt of tenders not taken into account – Irregularity of the pre-litigation
procedure – Effects – Annulment of the contested decision – Conditions – Burden of proof (see paras 61-68)*

3.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Obligation to comply with the principle of equal treatment of
tenderers – No necessity to neutralise absolutely all the advantages of the contracting tenderer in place (see paras 74-77)*

4.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions
– Judicial review – Limits (see paras 180, 195)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2006 not to select the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicant and other companies in connection with a call for tenders for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects ‘CUST-DEV’ and to award the contract to another tenderer and (ii) damages. |

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |