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





CLEAN
POWER TECHNOLOGIES INC.





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 Clean Power Technologies
Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Diane Glatfelter,  as Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:


(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date:  January
      13, 2010
            By:
            /s/Diane
      GlatfelterName:
      Diane GlatfelterTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the
United States Code 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.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United
States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.)
IN RE: Bruce BUNTING

No. 240P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Bruce Edward Bunting, for Bunting, Bruce *395Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 17th of July 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 17th of July 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Pender County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
Shawn Blackburn v. NC Department of Public Safety

No. 143P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Joy R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Durham, For Blackburn, Shawn.

Tamika L. Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, For NC Department of Public Safety.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of April 2016 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 9th of June 2016."
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1852/2005

of 11 November 2005         

setting the coefficients applicable to cereals exported in the form of Scotch whisky for the period 2005/2006

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),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2825/93 of 15 October 1993 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 as regards the fixing and granting of adjusted refunds in respect of cereals exported in the form of certain spirit drinks (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the period 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006, the coefficients referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2825/93 applicable to cereals used in the United Kingdom in the production of Scotch whisky shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

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

It shall apply from 1 October 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 11 November 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 258, 16.10.1993, p. 6. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1633/2000 (OJ L 187, 26.7.2000, p. 29).

----

ANNEX

----
Consent

[Mason & Bashaw, CPA's, A.C. letterhead]

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT




Board of Directors
Beckley Bancorp, Inc.
200 Main Street
Beckley, West Virginia  25801




      We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference into the Forms S-8 of
Beckley  Bancorp,  Inc.  (File Nos.  33-99954 and 333-11907) of our audit report
dated January 27, 1997 included in the Form 10-KSB of Beckley Bancorp,  Inc. for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996.


/s/ Mason & Bashaw
Mason & Bashaw, CPA's, A.C.


March 27, 1997
State of North Carolina v. Sethy Tony Seam

No. 82A14

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 21, 2016

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Robert C. Montgomery, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Barbara S. Blackman and Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in *State v. Young* , --- N.C. ----, 794 S.E.2d 274, 2016 WL 7422373 (Dec. 21, 2016) (No. 80A14), the trial court's order is affirmed, and this case is remanded for resentencing.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2004/2004

of 23 November 2004         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 November 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 23 November 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 23 November 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
State v. Michael A. Sorbello

406P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Michael A. Sorbello, for Sorbello, Michael A.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of October 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
SIX FLAGS OVER GEORGIA II, LP et al. v. MARTIN; and vice versa.

A15A0828 A15A0829

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

October 12, 2017

Holland & Knight, Laurie W. Daniel, Leland H. Kynes, Mellori E. Lumpkin, Vernon M. Strickland, Heather A. Calhoun ; Carlock, Copeland & Stair, Charles M. McDaniel, Jr., Wayne D. McGrew III, for appellants.

Elmore, Michael B. Terry, Naveen Ramachandrappa; Deitch & Rogers, Gilbert H. Deitch, Andrew T. Rogers ; Michael L. Neff, T. Shane Peagler ; Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, Earl W. Gunn, Shannon V. Barrow, for appellee.

Dillard, Chief Judge.

In *Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P.*, 301 Ga. 323, 801 S.E.2d 24 (2017), the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part our previous decision in *Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P. v. Martin*, 335 Ga. App. 350, 780 S.E.2d 796 (2015), and remanded the case with direction. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed our holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict as to liability in Joshua Martin's premises-liability action against Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P. (albeit for different reasons), but reversed our decision to the extent that we held that, due *229to an apportionment error, the case must be retried in its entirety.1 Instead, our Supreme Court concluded that, upon remand to the trial court, the apportionment error, which is detailed in our original opinion, requires a retrial only as to apportionment, and thus, the Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court with direction that we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Supreme Court of Georgia's opinion.2 Accordingly, we adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia as our own, vacate the jury's verdict with respect to apportionment of damages *only*, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of our Supreme Court.

*Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and case remanded with direction.*

Miller, P. J., Ellington, P. J., McFadden, P. J., Barnes, P. J., Ray, P. J, Andrews, Branch, McMillian, Doyle, Reese, and Self, J. J., concur.

1

*See generally Martin*, 301 Ga. at 329-332 (II) (A), 336-341 (III), 801 S.E.2d 24.

2

*See id.* at 336-341 (III), 801 S.E.2d 24.
Harold FULLER, Plaintiff, v. Deborah FULLER, Defendant.

No. COA17-430

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 19, 2017

AFFIRMED.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    . Copies of agreements                           ( print page 56691)                        are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov*).                 

*Agreement No.:*                     011346-014.                 

*Title:*                     Israel Trade Conference Agreement.                 

*Parties:*                     Farrell Lines, Inc.; P&O Nedlloyd Limited; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd.                 

*Filing Party:*                     Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.                 

*Synopsis:*                     The amendment limits the parties' authority to cargo moving for the account of specific governmental organizations as well as under existing agreement service contracts.                 

*Agreement No.:*                     011920.                 

*Title:*                     CMA CGM/Maruba Space Charter Agreement.                 

*Parties:*                     CMA CGM, S.A. and Maruba S.A.                 

*Filing Party:*                     Paul M. Keane, Esq.; Cichanowicz, Callan, Keane, Vengrow & Textor, LLP; 61 Broadway; Suite 3000; New York, NY 10006-2802.                 

*Synopsis:*                     The agreement establishes a space charter arrangement between the parties in the trade between U.S. East Coast ports and ports in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Colombia.                 

By order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

Dated: September 23, 2005. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-19368 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00604-CR

Cresencio VASQUEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-0599

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2008

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence on June 5, 2007. Because appellant did not timely file a

motion for new trial, appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed by July 5, 2007. TEX.R. APP.

P. 26.2(a). Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until August 7, 2008, more than one year late.

Given the fact that appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, we are without jurisdiction to

entertain this appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
In the MATTER OF: D.D.D., J.L.D.D., F.A.T.D.

No. COA16-1239

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 22 April 2009 – CESD‐Communautaire v Commission**

**(Case T-286/05)**

Public procurement – Declaration of a serious breach of contract – Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 – Action for annulment – Error of law – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Misuse of powers – Manifest error of assessment – Statement of reasons – Rights of the defence

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras
66-73)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Definition (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 84)*

3.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope –* *Plea alleging lack of or insufficient statement of reasons –* *Plea alleging inaccurate statement of reasons* *– Distinction (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 110-111)*

**Re:**

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 18 May 2005 by which it informed the applicant that it had taken the
decision to declare, as regards various contracts referred to, that there had been a serious breach of contract under Article
93(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general
budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

**Operative part**

The Court:

1.         Dismisses the action;

2.         Orders Centre européen pour la statistique et le développement ASBL (CESD-Communautaire) to pay the costs.

| |
| |
DICESARE, et al. v. The CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

156P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Russ Ferguson, III, James P. Cooney, III, Mark J. Horoschak, Brian Allen Hayles, Sarah Motley Stone, Attorneys at Law, Charlotte, for The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authoirty, d/b/a Carolinas Healthcare System.

Reynolds Michael Elliot, Attorney at Law, for DiCesare, Christopher, et al.

Linwood Jones, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Hospital Association.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of May 2017 by North Carolina Hospital Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
Order filed December 11, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00479-CV

____________

SHRIHARI ENTERPRISES, INC, Appellant

V.

SATIESH Y. RAO AND SAI & SAI, INC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-54280

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due July 3, 2012 . See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.1. On August 30, 2012, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 

30 days. On October 19, 2012, this court granted a request for a 30-day extension of time 

to file the record with the notation that no further extensions would be entertained absent 

exceptional circumstances. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the 

reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.
We order Gina Wilburn, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be entertained 

absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible 

for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If 

Gina Wilburn does not timely file the record as ordered, we will issue an order directing 

the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the 

record.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                 25,532,940
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       25,696,980
<PP&E>                                  7,645,084
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,389,977
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         32,439,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,558,793
<BONDS>                                 3,296,382
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                   93,227
<OTHER-SE>                             27,490,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           32,439,211
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                0
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        8,274,589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        463,149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (7,520,627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (7,520,627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                          (7,520,627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              ($.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              ($.81)


</TABLE>
Order entered October 28, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00889-CR

ISAAC JOHN RUSSELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-81954-2013

ORDER

By letter dated October 2, 2013, the Court notified the trial court judge that none of the 

boxes is checked on the certification of appellant’s right to appeal. We asked the trial court to 

review the record and file, within ten days, a certification that accurately reflects the trial court 

proceedings. To date, we have not received the completed certification. Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 25.2 requires the trial court to prepare a certification in every case in which 

the defendant is appealing. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a), (d), Cortez v. State, 2013 WL 5220904 

(Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2013).

Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this 

order, a completed certification of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflects the trial 

court proceedings.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Jay Bender, Presiding Judge, County Court at Law No. 6, and to counsel for all 

parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
Cause No. 12-15-00294-CR

IN RE:

 David Mark Davis II 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH JUDICIAL REGION

TYLER, TEXAS

RELATOR’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

TO HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES THE RELATOR, David Mark Davis II, who moves the Honorable Court to 

decide his Petition for Mandamus at the earliest possible time. In support, Davis would show the 

following: 

1. This mandamus action is directly related to a habeas corpus action and seeks to 

compel the Honorable Wes Suiter to fulfill his ministerial duty to complete a 

Certificate of Defendant’s Right to Appeal in Relator’s habeas case.

2. The completion of the Certificate of Defendant’s Right to Appeal is required for this 

Court to have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Davis’ appeal of the Respondent’s denial of 

Relator’s habeas petition. 

3. In Texas, court’s are commanded to dispose with an application for writ of habeas 

corpus at the “earliest day which the judge can devote to hearing the cause of the 

applicant.” See Tex. C. Crim. Proc. Art 11.11. 

4. It would only make sense that this case, since directly related to the habeas case, 

would be governed by the expedited timeline set forth in Art. 11.11. As such, this 

Court would be required to expedite this mandamus action 

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Relator moves the Honorable Court grant 

this Motion for Emergency Relief and for all other relief Relator might be justly entitled.

ACCEPTED

12-15-00294-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

12/14/2015 12:00:00 AM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 12/13/2015 5:31:02 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

_________________________ 

David Mark Davis II

Relator, Pro Se 

11 Glenview Court 

Lufkin, Texas 75901 

(936) 238-850 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that at the time of electronically filing this case, I served the foregoing

pleading by electronic service upon the following: 

Respondent: 

via email to wsuiter@angelinacounty.net 

Real Party in Interest:

via email to ejones@angelinacounty.net

David Mark Davis II