alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Kevin R. Callahan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of AffirmativeInsurance Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of my knowledge, that:(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the quarterended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.Dated: August 9, 2007              /s/ Kevin R. Callahan   Kevin R. Callahan   Chairman of the Board and Chief
Fred COHEN, executor of the estate of Dennis Alan O'Neal, deceased, and Fred Cohen, executor of the estate of Debra Dee O'Neal, deceased, Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC. (f/k/a Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. and/or Teledyne Continental Motors); Teledyne Technologies, Inc.; Air Care Aviation Services, Inc.; Air-Care, Inc. (d/b/a Air Care, Inc.); and Aircraft Accessories of Oklahoma, Inc., Defendants.

No. COA16-792

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 2, 2017

AFFIRMED.
#### Jack LIEBMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D00-2883.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 2003.

*515Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Margaret Good-Earnest, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and August A. Bonavita, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

STEVENSON, J.

Appellant, Jack' Liebman, entered no contest pleas to pending charges in seven lower court cases. Liebman filed a motion to withdraw the no contest pleas but later withdrew it. Now, on appeal, Liebman asks this court to reinstate his motion to withdraw plea, arguing (1) that a motion to withdraw plea is a critical stage of the proceeding and that he was denied his right to counsel, and (2) that the counsel he was subsequently provided at the hearing rendered ineffective assistance. We affirm.

Appeals following a plea of guilty or no contest are governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A), which provides that, following a plea, a defendant may appeal only those disposi-tive issues specifically reserved or, if no issues were reserved, the lower court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction; a violation of the plea agreement, if preserved by motion to withdraw the plea; an involuntary plea, if preserved by motion to withdraw the plea; and a sentencing error, if preserved. Here, Liebman did not reserve any issues for appeal when he entered his plea and, while ultimately he wishes to challenge the voluntariness of his plea, this issue has not been preserved since he withdrew his motion to withdraw plea, depriving the trial court of the opportunity to rule on the same.

Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the January 4, 2001 hearing wherein appellant withdrew his motion to withdraw his plea.1

AFFIRMED.

POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

1

. On the merits of the first issue, we cannot agree that Liebman was denied his right to *516counsel at the January 4, 2001 hearing where the trial court allowed appellant to withdraw -his motion. Although appellant’s original trial counsel withdrew, the trial court appointed new counsel to represent appellant at this hearing. Indeed, Liebman argues that the attorney appointed to represent him at this hearing provided ineffective assistance of counsel. However, any such ineffectiveness is not apparent from the record and cannot be considered for the first time on direct appeal. *See, e.g., Barrientos v. State,*825 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), *review denied,*845 So.2d 887 (Fla.2003).
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Form
S-8 No. 333-2886 pertaining to the 1985 Stock Incentive Program, the Outside
Directors' Stock Option Plan, the Employee Qualified Stock Purchase Plan and the
1994 Stock Option Plan, Forms S-8 No. 333-52037 and No. 333-89275 pertaining to
the 1994 Stock Option Plan, Form S-8 No. 333-68249 pertaining to the Employee
Qualified Stock Purchase Plan, Form S-8 No. 333-49906 pertaining to the 1994
Stock Option Plan and the 2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and Form S-8 No.
333-67624 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and the Employee Qualified
Stock Purchase Plan of Celeritek, Inc. of our report dated April 25, 2002, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Celeritek, Inc.
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2002.



                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


San Jose, California
June 7, 2002
----

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada on the processing of Advance Passenger Information (API)/Passenger Name Record (PNR) data (COM(2005) 200 final)

(2005/C 218/06)

THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular it's Article 286,

Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular its Article 8,

Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, and in particular it's Article 41,

Having regard to the request for an opinion in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 received on 26 May 2005 from the Commission,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

1.   Introduction

2.   The essence of the agreement

3.   The implications on Directive 95/46/EC

4.   On the substance of the agreement with Canada

4.1   Approval of the main elements of the proposal

4.2   Number and nature of API/PNR-data

4.3   The purpose of the processing

4.4   Protection of the data subject

5.   Conclusions

Done at Brussels, 15 June 2005.

Peter HUSTINX

European Data Protection Supervisor

----

(1)  Case C-317/04, pending before the Court.

(2)  This is an independent advisory group, composed of representatives of the data protection authorities of the Member States, the EDPS and the Commission, which was set up by Directive 95/46/EC. The EDPS refers to Opinion 3/2004 on the level of protection ensured in Canada for the transmission of Passenger Name Records and Advanced Passenger Information from airlines (11 February 2004) and Opinion 1/2005 on the level of protection ensured in Canada for the transmission of Passenger Name Record and Advance Passenger Information from airlines (19 January 2005).

(3)  See the Commissioner's Statement of 9 April 2003 (http://www.privcom.gc.ca/keyIssues/ki-qc/mc-ki-api_e.asp).

----
Section 906 CEO Certification

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 Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Rodolfo Prieto, Chief Executive 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:

(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.



|                        |  |  |  |       |  |                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | -----------------
|                        |  |  | 
|/s/ Rodolfo Prieto      |  |  |  | Date: |  | November 13, 2007
|Rodolfo Prieto          |  |  |  |       |  |                  
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |       |  |
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4310 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4310

To direct the Secretary of Labor to issue implementing regulations for 
 drug testing under State unemployment compensation programs, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2014

Mr. Brady of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Labor to issue implementing regulations for 
 drug testing under State unemployment compensation programs, 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 ``Ready to Work Act''.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE TO ISSUE REGULATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall issue a final rule 
to carry out section 303(l)(1)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act.
    (b) Special Rule if Interim Rule Not Issued After 180 Days.--If the 
Secretary of Labor has not issued an interim final rule to carry out 
such section as of the date that is 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the final rule required to be issued under 
subsection (a) shall provide that, for purposes of such section, the 
State agency charged with the administration of the State unemployment 
compensation law shall determine whether an occupation regularly 
conducts drug testing.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.3

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel L. Clemmens, Vice President and Chief Accounting 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:

|   | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ DANIELL.CLEMMENS                                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Daniel L. ClemmensVice President and Chief Accounting Officer |   |
| March 4, 2008                                       |   |
# C_2019136EN.01000501.xml

| 12.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8941 — EQT/Widex/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 136/02)

On 13 February 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M8941. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M8941. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 – Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission**

**(Case T-175/05)**

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for monochloroacetic acid – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Market sharing and price fixing – Attributability of the infringement – Fines – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Deterrent effect

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Community law – Action brought by several companies in a group against a Commission decision fining
them jointly and severally – Action admissible in relation to some of those entities – No need to adjudicate on a plea of
inadmissibility raised against certain others not capable of benefiting from a possible annulment**(Art. 230 EC) (see paras 46-47)*

2.                     *Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for
assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‐owned subsidiaries – Obligation
of the parent company to rebut the presumption that management power was actually exercised over its subsidiary (Arts 81 EC
and 82 EC) (see paras 91-93, 96)*

3.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Maximum amount – Calculation – Turnover to be taken into consideration – Cumulative
turnover of all the companies constituting the economic unit acting as an undertaking (Art. 81 EC; Council Regulations Nos
17, Art. 15, and 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 114, 132-133)*

4.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Turnover taken into consideration – Reference year – Last full year of the
infringement**(Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 15, and 1/2003, Art. 23) (see paras 142-143)*

5.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Deterrent effect – Account taken of the size and global resources of the fined
undertaking (Council Regulations Nos 17, Art. 15, and 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission Communication 98/C 9/03, Section 1A) (see
paras 154-155)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 – MCAA) and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Eka Chemicals AB to pay the costs. |
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19515]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 04-37; ET Docket No. 03-104; FCC 04-245]


Broadband Power Line Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted new requirements and measurement 
guidelines for a new type of carrier current system that provides 
access to broadband services using electric utility companies over 
power lines. Certain rules contained new information collection 
requirements and were published in the Federal Register on January 7, 
2005. This document announces the effective date of these published 
rules.

DATES: The amendments to Sec. Sec.  15.615(a) through (e) published at 
70 FR 1360, January 7, 2005, became effective on July 22, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Brooks, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418-2454.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 22, 2005, the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) approved the information collection requirements 
contained in Sections 15.615(a) through (e) pursuant to OMB Control No. 
3060-1087. Accordingly, the information collection requirements 
contained in these rules became effective on February 7, 2005.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19515 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Stephen Victor WHEELER v. CENTRAL CAROLINA SCHOLASTIC SPORTS, INC. d/b/a Central Carolina Scholastic Baseball Summer League

No. 150A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 22, 2017

Jerome P. Trehy, Jr., Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, Wilmington, by Melody J. Jolly, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 868/2005

of 8 June 2005         

opening an invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   An invitation to tender is hereby opened for the reduction in the import duty referred to in Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 on maize to be imported into Spain.

2.   Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 shall apply save as otherwise provided for in this Regulation.

Article 2

The invitation to tender shall be open until 28 July 2005. During that period, weekly invitations shall be issued with quantities and closing dates as shown in the notice of invitation to tender.

Article 3

Import licences issued under these invitations to tender shall be valid 50 days from the date they are issued within the meaning of Article 10(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 June 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

(2)OJ L 336, 23.12.1994, p. 22.

(3)OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

----
In the MATTER OF: M.L.E., III

No. COA16-1180

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
Paula FISHER, Widow of Harrison Fisher, Jr., Deceased Employee, Plaintiff, v. UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a United Airlines, Employer, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Carrier (Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Administrator), Defendants.

No. COA16-1210

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 19, 2017

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                      12,401,436
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,707,379
<PP&E>                                       2,177,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                 472,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,789,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          689,301
<BONDS>                                      1,175,224
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     87,536
<COMMON>                                         4,333
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,833,348
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,789,742
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,109,738
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              80,040
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,842,327)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,842,327)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,842,327)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($8.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($8.87)


</TABLE>