alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

                        PennFed Financial Services, Inc.

  CERTIFICATION REQURIED BY SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

     Pursuant  to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  each of the
undersigned  hereby  certifies  in his or her  capacity as an officer of PennFed
Financial  Services,  Inc. (the "Company") that the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended June 30,  2003 fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the  information  contained  in such report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods presented in the financial  statements included in
such report.




                                     By:  /s/ Joseph L. LaMonica
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Joseph L. LaMonica
                                          President and Chief
                                          Executive Officer

                                          Date: September 22, 2003


                                     By:  /s/ Claire M. Chadwick
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Claire M. Chadwick
                                          Executive Vice President,
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Controller

                                          Date: September 22, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin
R. Callahan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 to the best of my knowledge,
that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Date: May 10, 2010



/s/ Kevin R. CallahanKevin R. CallahanChairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00511-CV

In re Rhett Webster Pease

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM LEE COUNTY

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

The petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition is denied. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Filed: August 19, 2008
**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 Town SportsInternational Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for thethree month period ended June 30, 2006 filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Robert Giardina, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to my knowledge:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934; and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    represents, in all material respects, the financial condition    and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Robert Giardina       Robert Giardina     Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.     Chief Executive OfficerAugust 10, 2006
36
# C_2010037EN.01003402.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Notartel v OHIM — SAT.1 (R.U.N.)

(Case T-490/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark R.U.N. - Earlier Community and national word marks ‘ran’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Partial refusal of registration)

2010/C 37/45

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Notartel SpA — Società informatica del Notariato (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Bosshard and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Sempio, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 October 2007 (Case R 1267/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH and Notartel SpA — Società informatica del Notariato

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Notartel SpA — Società informatica del Notariato to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Notartel SpA — Società informatica del Notariato to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51165 Summary Calendar

RUTH NUNEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PATRICIA SIMMS; GLENNA ARCHER, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CV-336-DB

-------------------- Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ruth Nunez appeals the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the appellees, the prevailing parties in Nunez’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit. Nunez’s suit stemmed from the termination of her employment contract as a teacher with the El Paso Independent School District. Following the assertion of qualified immunity by the defendants, the district court dismissed the suit on the basis that Nunez had not alleged the violation of a clearly established constitutional right as sheNo. 02-51165 -2- had no property interest in her continued employment as a teacher. This court affirmed the dismissal. See Nunez v. Simms , 341 F.3d 385, 386 (5th Cir. 2003). While the appeal on the merits was pending, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and F ED . R. C IV . P. 54(d), finding that Nunez’s lawsuit was frivolous. Although Nunez’s lawsuit and her appeal on the merits were unsuccessful, her case was not so lacking in merit that it was groundless. See Nunez , 341 F.3d at 387-92; United States v. Mississippi , 921 F.2d 604, 609 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the district court clearly erred in finding that the lawsuit was frivolous, and abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to the defendants. See Mississippi , 921 F.2d at 609.
REVERSED.
* 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. 07-51127

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEROY LASHAN SHELTON, also known as Big

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-89-2

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Leroy Lashan Shelton has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Shelton has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
#### Chutney OXENDINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-1623.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 27, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 2003.

Chutney Oxendine, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.1 In St. Johns County, three of appellant’s cases were consolidated, and appellant entered nolo contendere pleas to all charges including two separate offenses *287of felony driving while license suspended, revoked or cancelled (“DWLS”). Appellant now claims that he should not have been convicted of these felonies because one of the prior DWLS misdemeanor convictions should not have been used to reclassify the current offenses to felonies. Appellant asserts that his prior offense was committed under a previous statutory version of DWLS which did not require “knowledge” as an element. *See generally Huss v. State,*771 So.2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Rule 3.800(a) provides a remedy for the correction of illegal sentences. Appellant’s argument is an attack on his DWLS convictions as he claims he should have been convicted of misdemeanors, not felonies. Because appellant entered nolo contendere pleas to two felony DWLS charges, this issue was waived. Appellant’s remedy would have been a timely 3.850 motion alleging involuntary plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. *See Caples v. State,*790 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W., and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

1

. Appellant mistakenly characterizes his motion to correct illegal sentence as being filed pursuant to "Rule 3.850(a)." The instant motion could not be treated as a 3.850 motion as it would be untimely. Appellant’s direct appeal resulted in an affirmance, the mandate issuing on Februaty 9, 2001. (Appeal No. 5D00-1619). Appellant’s motion was "filed” under the mailbox rule more than two years *287later on April 9, 2003. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b).
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 383

- C V

Style: In re International Agencies Co., Ltd., Relator

Date motion filed * : June 20 , 201 6

Type of motion: O pposed First M otion t o Exten d Time f o r the Fil ing of Reply to Real

Parties in Interest, Winnie Stacey Al Wazzan and Jon Malone’s

Responses to Writ of Mandamus

Part y filing motion: Rel ator International Agencies Co., Ltd.

Document to be filed: Re ply to Respo nse s to Petition

Is appeal accelerated? Yes (original proceeding).

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: N/A

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due D ate: N/A

Date Requested: June 29 , 2016

Ordered that motion i s:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: June 29 , 2016.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Judge ’ s signature:

_

/s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Acting

Date: June 21, 2016
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission. 

# ACTION:

Appointment of Individuals to serve as members of Performance Review Board.

# Effective Dates:

 September 26, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeri L. Buchholz, Director of Human Resources, U.S. International Trade Commission (202) 205-2651. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission has appointed the following individuals to serve on the Commission's Performance Review Board (PRB): 

Chairman of PRB—Vice-Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun.

Chairman of PRB—Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman.

Member—Robert A. Rogowsky.

Member—Lyn M. Schlitt.

Member—Stephen A. McLaughlin.

Member—Lynn I. Levine.

Member—Robert G. Carpenter.

Member—Robert B. Koopman.

Member—James Lyons.

Member—Karen Laney-Cummings.

                    This notice is published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting our TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.                

By order of the Chairman:

Issued: September 26, 2005.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-19608 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
STATE v. Francis L. DEMAIO, Sr.

247P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Francis L. DeMaio, Sr., for Demaio, Francis Louis (Sr.)

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of July 2017 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
STATE v. Michael Patrick RYAN

366A10-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 25, 2017

Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, William F. Massengale, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Ryan, Michael Patrick.

Kelvin Atkinson, Assistant District Attorney, Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

William Stevenson, Assistant District Attorney.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of April 2017 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of April 2017."

Court reporter shall have up to and including the 5th day of June 2017 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 24, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 24, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0040. ANGEL L. TORRES v. LORI TORRES.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 09A105209
Exhibit 32(b)

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 on Form 10-Q of NewMarket Corporation (the
Company) for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Fiorenza, chief financial 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.



|                             |  |                   
|---------------------------- |  | ------------------
|By:                          |  | /s/ D. A. Fiorenza
|David A. Fiorenza           
|Vice President and Treasurer
|April 30, 2007
#### Deorick ELLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-1334.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 18, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 4, 2003.

*485Deorick Ellis, Sanderson, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

SHARP, W„ J.

Ellis appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In this proceeding, Ellis asserts the trial court improperly departed from the guidelines without written reasons. We affirm.

This motion is successive and violates the law of the case doctrine. In a prior motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), Ellis raised the very same issue, appealed the trial court’s summary denial, and this court affirmed. *See State v. McBride,*28 Fla. L. Weekly S401, 848 So.2d 287,(Fla. May 15, 2003); *Smith v. State,*685 So.2d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

We caution Ellis against filing additional successive and improper motions. Enough is enough. *See Isley v. State,*652 So.2d 409 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). *See also Thomas v. State,*824 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
**Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2009 – Pannon Hőerőmű v Commission**

**(Case T-352/08 R)**

Interim measures – State aid – Commission decision declaring State aid granted by Hungary in favour of certain electricity producers by way of electricity
purchasing agreements incompatible with the common market – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency – Balancing of interests

1.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima
facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification
– Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 10-13)*

2.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain
events (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 27-28, 30, 33)*

3.                     *Application for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas
in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought – Lodging of an additional memorandum in order to
remedy deficiencies – Incompatibility with the procedure (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance, Arts 104(2) and (3), and 109) (see paras 31-32)*

4.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable
damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras
40, 54)*

5.                     *Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests
involved – Decision on State aid (Arts 88(2) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 58-59)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for stay of execution of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2008) 2223 final of 4 June 2008 on State aid granted by the Republic of Hungary by way of electricity purchasing agreements. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Costs are reserved. |
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

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



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aames Investment Corporation (the Company) for the
quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, A. Jay Meyerson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jon D. Van
Deuren., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1359, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



1. This 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.



|                         |  |  |  |                                                                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: November 14, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ A. Jay MeyersonA. Jay Meyerson Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



|                         |  |  |  |                                                               
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: November 14, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Jon D. Van DeurenJon D. Van Deuren Chief Financial Officer