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

---

EXHIBIT 13.2

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 Pointer Telocation, Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronen Stein, 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 to my knowledge:

| | 1. | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|June 27, 2006 |  | /S/ RONEN STEIN
Ronen SteinChief Financial Officer
|------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



---

---
Honorable E. L. Bhelton

CountyAuditor Cleburme, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion Ho. o-2178 R0: Whetherlien instrument dated December 1, 1935, has to be ~stampedunder Article 7047e, .vernon’B Civil statutes.

a your letter of April 4, @JO, 

### yourequest 

### OU+opinion as to whether a deed bated 

### December 1, 1935, ntlpulatlng an assumedconsideration of $7,000.00 and Welch has never been filed for record but is offered for filing at this date is subject to the state stamptax.

Article 70b7-3,Vernon’s Civil Statutes, reads in part as follows:

“(a) Except as herein otherwise provided there is hereby levied eyedasrcased a tax of Ten (lO$) Cents on each OneHundrea It j 100.00 Dollars or fractfon~ thereof, over the first TwoHundred 200.00 Dollars, en all notes an&obligations secured by chattel mmtgage, deed of drust, machanic’r lien contract, veobor’e lien, conditional sale* Contract an&aI2 instruments of a SFmllar nature vhieh are filed or recorded in the office of the County Clerk un&er the Registration Lawsof this State; provided that tie tax 6hal.l be levied on instruments seourfng an amotmt~ofTwoHun&red ($200.00) Dollara, or less. After the effective date of this Act, except as hereinafter provided, no such instrument shall be filed or recorded by any County Clurk in this State until there has been affixed to such instrument @tampsIn accordance with the provietpns of this eectioq + * *” From a reabing of the above statute It is seen iihat the tax 18 not due until and unless the instrument of security Is presented for record. It fr further provldad that except as provided. in the Act no such instrwnent shall be filed for record until it has been stampedin accordance with the provisions of the Ilet. &Jexcaptlon iw’ma4e as to instrument8 dated 

### prior to the effective date of i&e act. In auf conference *inion UQ. 3061, dated June 17, 1930, we axpMslea the view that the tax in questloa, is la+& upon the privilege of using the recorde of the office of the coun%yclerk, rather tHonorable E. L. Shelton, Page‘$2

than being a tax upon the n&e or other obligation secured by the mortgage or other lien. m 0~ opinion Ro. o-1328 we held that a deed would be required to be&r the stampswhere the gurchaeer waatherein required to afmume a pre-exi.eting lndebteduese w&re the deed in which the vendor's lien had been originally created bad been recorded wlthout paymentof the tax. Our opinion follmm that the inatmment with which you are concerned muat be stampedbefore it is recorded. I~Ithis connection it Is aammedthat the vendor's lien has not been paid and released of record. Yourlrvely truly, ATTORNEY

(I&I~ERALoFTI++X~L~ By /a/ I3leanR. LewI.8

Assistaat

ApprovedApril 15,,lp& /a/ ciEliAm

c. l.fANI? ATPORNEY-OFT~ APPROVED:

Opinion Committee, by B.W.B., Chairman
----

|   |
|--------|

EXHIBIT 31.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Sass Peress, Chief Executive Officer of ICP Solar Technologies Inc. (the"registrant"), certify that: 

1. 

I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-QSB of ICP Solar Technologies Inc.; 

2. 

Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

3. 

Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

4. 

The registrant's other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

a) 

designed such disclosure controlsand procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared; 

b) 

evaluated the effectiveness of thesmall business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

c) 

disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

5. 

The registrant's other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): 

a) 

all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of our financial reportinginternal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

b) 

any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: December 17, 2007 

/s/ *Sass Peress*---------------------------------- Sass Peress Chief Executive Officer 

|   |
|--------|

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Alan Holland GRIFFIN, Defendant.

No. COA17-373

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
PINE v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. # 1552, et al.

335A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2017

Holly M. Stott, Attorney at Law, M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Linda Stephens, Attorney at Law, for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. # 1552, et al.

David A. Shelby, Attorney at Law, Salisbury, for Pine, Patricia.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 30th of November 2017 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of December 2017."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 16th day of January 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES ROBINSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

LESLIE SZIEBERT, Dr. Washington State 

Special Commitment Center Chief Medical 

Director; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35308 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05555-RJB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. 

Washington civil detainee Charles Robinson appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutionally 

inadequate medical care for a foot injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 26 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35308 

§ 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay 

Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). 

We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant 

Sziebert on Robinson’s claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care because 

Robinson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sziebert’s

conduct fell below the professional judgment standard, or whether Sziebert knew 

of and acquiesced to unconstitutional conduct by subordinates. See Mitchell v. 

Washington, 818 F.3d 436, 443 (9th Cir. 2016) (Fourteenth Amendment 

professional judgment standard applies to civil detainees; under the professional 

judgment standard, a professional’s decision is presumptively valid, and liability 

may be imposed only where there is a substantial departure from the accepted 

professional judgment, practice, or standards); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 

(9th Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983).

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4362 

To prohibit United States contributions to the United Nations Population 

Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2014 

Mr. SALMON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit United States contributions to the United 

Nations Population Fund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBU4 TIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS POPU5 LATION FUND. 

6 No funds available to the Department of State or any 

7 other department or agency may be used to provide con8 tributions directly or indirectly to the United Nations Pop9 ulation Fund. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
State v. Antwan Anthony

324A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 17, 2017

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Attorney at Law, for Anthony, Antwan.

Kimberly Robb, Assistant District Attorney, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of February 2017 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

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

Court reporter shall have up to and including the 22nd day of March 2017 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel.
#### Denver I. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-2549.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 19, 2003.

Denver I. Wilson, Orlando, Pro Se.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Section 948.01, Florida Statutes (2000).

PETERSON, THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 156/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 156 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 507 July 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 156

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 507 July 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory Acts |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 69th plenary session 23 March 2007 |
| 2007/C 156/01 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the leverage effect of the Structural Funds | 1 |
| 2007/C 156/02 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions youth participation and information: Follow-up to the White Paper on a New Impetus for European Youth | 8 |
| 2007/C 156/03 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the future of the Single Market and Stocktaking of European Society | 14 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory Acts

Committee of the Regions

69th plenary session 23 March 2007

2007/C 156/01

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the leverage effect of the Structural Funds

1

2007/C 156/02

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions youth participation and information: Follow-up to the White Paper on a New Impetus for European Youth

8

2007/C 156/03

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the future of the Single Market and Stocktaking of European Society

14

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
----

Action brought on 25 August 2006 — RSA Security Ireland v Commission

(Case T-227/06)

(2006/C 249/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RSA Security Ireland Ltd (Shannon, Ireland) (represented by: B. Conway, Barrister and S. Daly, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is importing and selling the product ‘RSA SecurID authenticator’ in the Community. The company seeks the annulment of Commission Regulation No 888/2006 (1) by which this product was classified under heading 8543 in the Combined Nomenclature.

The applicant contends that, in enacting Regulation No 888/2006, the Commission has failed to identify the essential characteristics of the product and it has misdescribed the product as ‘a security device’ and as a device ‘[which] allows the user access to the records stored on an ADP machine’ in the description of the goods in the annex to Regulation No 888/2006. The applicant alleges that these failures are errors of law which should lead to the annulment of the regulation.

----

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 888/2006 of 16 June 2006 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2006 L 165, p. 6).

----
(109 So. 775)

No. 27395.

#### FERTEL v. WEINBERG.

(June 28, 1926.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1926.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

1. Divorce &wkey;>27(l8).

Wife *held,*entitled to separation from bed and board, under Oiv. Code, art. 138, subd. 3, where husband cursed, struck, and kicked her.

2. Divorce <§=>240(5).

Alimony of $40 per month, *held*not excessive, where husband, -who was paying $5 per week for support of child-under order of'another court, managed store for $80 per month and one-half of profits.

Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; H. C. Cage, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Annie Fertel, wife of Cyril B. Weinberg, against Cyril B. Weinberg. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Feitel & Feitel, N. H. Polmer, and Robert •Ewing, Jr., all of New Orleans, for appellant.

John B. Fisher, of New Orleans, for appellee.

OVERTON, J.

This is a sxtit for separation from bed and board brought by the wife against the husband. The cause of action is based upon that part of paragraph 3 of article 138 of the Civil Code that grants a separation from bed and board on account of cruel treatment and outrages of one of the spouses against the other of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable. In setting forth the outrages and cruel treatment complained of, plaintiff alleges that her husband has frequently cursed, abused, and struck her, and that he did so especially on or about January 25, 1925, February 1, 1925, February 15, 1925, and on other dates. It is alleged that the separation took place on February 15, 1925.

[1] The evidence is conflicting. We think, however, that the preponderance of it is with plaintiff, and establishes that on January 25, 1925, defendant cursed his wife, struck and kicked her, and on the afternoon of the same day, when she went to his place of business to ask him for an explanation, and to treat her properly, he again laid his hands in anger upon her, and that on February 1, 1925, he again cursed and struck her, and did likewise on February 15, 1925, on which date plaintiff and defendant separated.

So finding the facts, we think it clear that plaintiff is entitled to the separation for which she prays. Headen v. Headen, 15 La. 61; Armant v. Armant, 4 La. Ann. 137.

[2] Defendant complains of the amount of alimony allowed plaintiff. The trial judge al*957lowed lier $40 a month.' In addition to this, the juvenile court is requiring defendant to pay $5 a week for the support of his child, the issue of his marriage with plaintiff. Defendant contends that he is managing a store for his mother for $S0 a month and one-half of the profits. It does not appear what the profits, if any, are. The trial judge evidently considered that defendant’s income from all sources amounted to considerably more a month than $80. In this we think that the trial court is correct, and, so thinking, we see no reason to disturb the judgment.

. For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
# C_2008128EN.01002601.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht, Germany) — Grete Schlepps v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern

(Case C-60/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 128/47)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

1

---
# Official Journal L 141I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 141I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 635 May 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 141I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 635 May 2020

---

| Contents | | | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/615 of 4 May 2020 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 5 May 2020 | 1 |

Contents

page

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/615 of 4 May 2020 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 5 May 2020

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.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of ADESA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cameron C. Hitchcock, ChiefFinancial 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 (18USC 1350), 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 result of operations ofthe Company.

 

 
| /s/    Cameron C.  Hitchcock |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Chief Financial  Officer                         |

 

*This certification accompaniesthe Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.*

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and 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 Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |        |  |                                  
|------------------ |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------
|                   |  |        |  | /s/ Curtis W. Mewbourne          
|                   |  | Name:  |  | Curtis W. Mewbourne              
|Date: May 15, 2007 |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer          
|                   |  |        |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
October 21, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.R., JR., A CHILD

NO. 14-14-00813-CV 

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss this appeal. Having 

considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.