alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 13 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 Logica Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre as Chief Executive Officer and Enzo Taddei as
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: May 15, 2008.



/s/ Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre
--------------------------------
Name: Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Enzo Taddei
--------------------------------
Name: Enzo Taddei
Chief Financial Officer





                                       17
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 November 18, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 04-21007

SANDRA F. McKINNEY Plaintiff - Appellant

VERSUS

PFIZER, INC. Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Houston

4:03-CV-4988
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The judgment of the district court is affirmed essentially for
the reasons stated in its careful Memorandum and Order of November, 12, 2004.
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Brian M. Bobeck, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Aquis
Communications Group, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and we have:
         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) disclosed in this report any change in registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's fourth fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and


         5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):


         a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and


         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls over financial reporting.




Date: April 12, 2004

                                                /s/ Brian M. Bobeck
                                                Brian M. Bobeck
                                                Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2
 
 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Gilbert G. Goldbeck., certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of GigaBeam Corporation;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this report;
 
 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 (5) The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date:  November 29, 2004
 
 /s/ Gilbert G. Goldbeck
 Gilbert G. Goldbeck
 Chief Financial Officer
 GigaBeam Corporation
 
 21
Randy Johnson, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 25, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on December 22, 2015 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable William P. Keesley be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Keesley shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Keesley shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
STATE of North Carolina v. Steven Joseph HUGHES

No. COA16-779

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-08-131   0004-383-0        -000-CV

JOHNNY WILLIAMSON ANDJoOhHnNeEtTtTaA LaAmMpPkKiInN	APPELLANTS	

SHAYLYN WILLIAMSON

	V.

FIRST TEXAS HOMES, INC. D/B/ALaArRrRyY LaAmMpPkKiInN, JrR.	APPELLEES

GALLERY CUSTOM HOMES D/B/A

FIRST TEXAS CUSTOM HOMES

	----------

	FROM THE 393RD 2133rdRD         DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT  DENTON          COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On  sEPTEM,BERSeptem,bber 29, 2008er               ,  June 2, 2005, we notified appellant[s] that [his/her/theirtheir]  brief had not been filed as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a).  TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a).  We stated we wCcould dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant[s]s or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  We have not received any response.

	Because appellant’s[s’]’ brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

	Appellant[s] shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		

PANEL D:	 :  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.   MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DELIVERED:     June 30, 2005 October 1523, 2008
STATE v. Derrick D. BOGER

158P06-15

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Derrick D. Boger, for Boger, Derrick D.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of August 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
#### David L. FELDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D02-4410.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 25, 2003.

David L. Felder, Florida City, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marrett W. Hanna, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order denying his rule 3.850 motion as successive. We disagree with the state’s contention that appellant’s earlier motion, styled by him as a motion for post conviction relief and reviewed at the state’s urging as a motion to correct illegal sentence, made his second motion for post conviction relief successive. The state argues that, since he failed to allege his new grounds for relief were unknown and could not have been discovered at the time of his earlier motion, the motion was properly denied. Appellant’s earlier motion, having been treated and reviewed as a 3.800(a) motion, raised claims concerning the legality of his sentencing. His present motion raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a claim we feel, given the circumstances of this case, warrants review by the trial court on the merits. *See Ramirez v. State,*822 So.2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

GUNTHER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Catherine D. Daniels,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-18677  Filed 9-15-05; 11:27 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
Ex103FA971Minor1




Exhibit 10.3


AHCA CONTRACT NO. FA971


MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 1




WELLCARE OF FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A
STAYWELL HEALTH PLAN OF FLORIDA
8735 Henderson Road
Renaissance 2
Tampa, Florida 33634


AHCA Contract No. FA971, as entered into on the 30th day of August 2012, is hereby revised as follows:


		
	1.
	Standard Contract, Section III, Item B., Contract Managers, sub-item 1, is hereby amended to now read as follows:




		
	1.
	The Agency’s Contract Manager’s contact information is as follows: 




Tanya Hand
Agency for Health Care Administration
2727 Mahan Drive, MS #50
Tallahassee, FL 32308
(850) 412-4060


All other terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain unchanged.


	
					
	WELLCARE OF FLORIDA, INC.
	 
	STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR

	D/B/A STAYWELL HEALTH PLAN OF
	 
	HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION

	FLORIDA
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Gregg MacDonald
	 
	/s/ Tanya Hand

	Gregg MacDonald
	 
	Tanya Hand

	State President
	 
	Contract Manager

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	DATE:                                   
	4/8/14
	 
	DATE:                                           
	4/9/14

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	APPROVED

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	/s/ David Rogers

	 
	 
	 
	David Rogers

	 
	 
	 
	Assistant Deputy Secretary for Medicaid

	 
	 
	 
	Health Systems

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	DATE:                          
	4/9/14






REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

AHCA Contract No. FA971, Minor Modification No. 1, Page 1 of 1
STATE of North Carolina v. Dyquaon Kenner BRAWLEY

No. 370A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 28, 2017

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Brawley, Dyquaon Kenner.

Elizabeth Leonard Mckay, Special Deputy Attorney General, Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 6th of November 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of November 2017."
* 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. 08-50127

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PASCUAL ROSALES-ROBLES, also known as Rosales-Pascual

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-1875-ALL

Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pascual Rosales-Robles (Rosales) appeals the sentence imposed for his

conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. Rosales argues that the

district court committed significant procedural error by failing to adequately

explain the sentence it chose. 

Rosales did not assert his claim of procedural error in the district court.

Accordingly, his argument is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 29, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50127

2

Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 2005). In reviewing a district court’s

sentencing decision, this court must first determine whether the district court

committed any significant procedural error. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.

586, 597-98 (2007); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 524-25 (5th Cir.

2008). 

A sentencing judge is required only to “set forth enough to satisfy the

appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a

reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). Rosales has shown no procedural

error by the district court because the record reflects that the court considered

Rosales’s mitigation arguments. 

Rosales also argues that although his was a within-guidelines sentence,

it should not be presumed reasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is flawed under

Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 574 (2007), wherein the Supreme

Court recognized that certain Guidelines do not take account of empirical data

and national experience. 

Although Kimbrough made clear that a district court may, in certain cases,

conclude that the Guidelines fail properly to reflect § 3553(a)’s considerations

and may disagree with guidelines policy, it does not follow that a district court

abuses its discretion when it concludes, as the district court did here, that the

Guidelines are appropriate. This court recently rejected a similar argument in

United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008).

Rosales also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Rosales’s sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo, 435

F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Rosales has not demonstrated that his sentence

was an abuse of discretion by the district court. See Alonzo, 435 F.3d at 554. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Terry Jerome WILSON, Defendant.

No. COA16-1212

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

REVERSED. VACATED.
# C_2009153EN.01003401.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 May 2009 — NHL Enterprises v OHIM — Glory & Pompea (LA KINGS)

(Case T-414/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LA KINGS - Earlier national figurative mark KING - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 153/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: NHL Enterprises BV (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented initially by G. Llewelyn, Solicitor, and V. Barresi, lawyer, and subsequently by M. Collins, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves and D. Botis, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Glory & Pompea, SA (Mataró, Spain)

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

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 July 2005 (Case R 371/2003-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Glory & Pompea, SA and NHL Enterprises BV.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 July 2005 (Case R 371/2003-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 July 2005 (Case R 371/2003-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by NHL Enterprises BV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by NHL Enterprises BV.

---

(1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

1

---