alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Chad DeGroot, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Metasun Enterprises, Inc., 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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Metasun Enterprises, Inc. for the three month period ended July 31, 2005 (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 Metasun Enterprises, Inc.

Dated:  October 5, 2005

/s/ Chad DeGroot                                                            

Chad DeGroot

President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Metasun Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Metasun Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6506

JIMMY GALLISHAW, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee , and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Sherri A. Lydon , District Judge. ( 9:18

- cv - 03253

- SAL )

Submitted : March 19, 2021 Decided: April 1, 2021

Before MOTZ, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jimmy Gallishaw, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy Gallishaw, Jr. , seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Gallishaw ’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certi ficate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v.
Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gallishaw has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Gallishaw’s motion to remand and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the m aterials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**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**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of
      Pure Biofuels Corp. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) 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.




Date:
                August 19, 2008/s/
                Luis GoyzuetaLuis
                Goyzueta, Chief Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
      required by Section 906, has been provided to Pure Biofuels Corp. and will
      be retained by Pure Biofuels Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In re Francine PEAK, Appellant.

No. CA10761-93.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

April 25, 2003.

Before: WAGNER, Chief Judge; STEADMAN and SCHWELB, Associate Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing or for amendment of opinion, the response thereto, and appellant’s statement of agreement with appellee’s proposed amendments of opinion, it is

ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is granted to the extent that the opinion filed on September 21, 2000, is amended as follows:

On page 8, footnote 10 is amended to read:

> 10 It appears that as part of the plea bargain the remaining twelve counts of the show cause order were dropped. Should Lynch choose to withdraw her guilty plea, at least the eight remaining counts alleging violations of the show cause order would be subject to reinstatement, if the newly-appointed prosecutor elects to pursue some or all of those charges.

On page 16, the last sentence of footnote 15 is amended to read:

> Should she be convicted on any count for violation of the injunction which the new prosecutor decides to pursue, she would of course retain the right to challenge such a conviction on appeal.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is otherwise denied.
**Exhibit 32**

 

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 interim report of FTD Group, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of thedates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

 

 
| Date: May 13,  2005 |                  |
|---------------------|-----------------------|
|                |                  |
|                | /S/ MICHAEL J. SOENEN |   |
|                | Name:                 | Michael J. Soenen |
|                | Title:                | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                |                  |
|                |                  |
|                | /S/ CARRIE A. WOLFE   |   |
|                | Name:                 | Carrie A. Wolfe |
|                | Title:                | Chief Financial Officer |
|                     |                       |  |  |

 

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 43 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.43

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 14 Red River Avenue North in Cold Spring, Minnesota, as the ``Officer 
                  Tommy Decker Memorial Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. OFFICER TOMMY DECKER MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14 Red River Avenue North in Cold Spring, Minnesota, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Officer Tommy Decker Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Officer 
Tommy Decker Memorial Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 08-0820

IN RE  GREATER HOUSTON ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s motion for interim relief, filed October 2, 2008, is granted.   All trial court proceedings in Cause No. 2006-CCL-00133-A, styled *Greater Houston Orthpaedic Specialists, LLP v. Jody Grisworld and Peter Zavaletta*, in the County Court at Law No 1 of Cameron County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this October 17, 2008.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400    08-293              -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.	CiItTyY oOfF NoOrRtThH RiIcChHlLaAnNdD HiIlLlLsS, TeExXaAsS	   APPELLANT	

	V.

 OPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	APPELLEE

 LaAuUrRaA FrRiIeEnNdD, InNdDiIvViIdDuUaAlLlLyY aAnNdD aAsS 	APPELLEES

PeErRsSoOnNaAlL ReEpPrReEsSeEnNtTaAtTiIvVeE oOfF tThHeE EsStTaAtTeE o

OfF SaArRaAhH ElLiIzZaAbBeEtThH FrRiIeEnNdD, DeEcCeEaAsSeEdD, 

aAnNdD LuUtThHeErR FrRiIeEnNdD, InNdDiIvViIdDuUaAlLlLyYTEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED	

	----------

		FROM THE 342ND          PROBATE DISTRICT COURT  NO. 2 OF TARRANT                     TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the parties’ appellant’s [s’]’ “Joint Motion To Dismiss aAppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(12), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants [ [s] [- [oOR the the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:   WALKER, J.; CAYCE,,  C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006  

September 18285, 2008
STATE of North Carolina v. Rotonya RUSSELL

No. 114P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Ms. Kimberly P. Hoppin, Attorney at Law, for Russell, Rotonya

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Ms. Heather H. Freeman, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Mr. Michael D. Waters, District Attorney, for State

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of April 2018 by Defendant 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 May 2018."
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4107

_____________________________
W ENDY S UE C ARTER , Former Wife
, Appellant,

v.

J ASPER J AMES C ARTER , Former Husband
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. W. Gregg Mc C aulie , Judge

. May 22, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , R AY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Caleb D. Rowland of Rowland Law, LLC, Jacksonville
, for Appellant.

Jasper James Carter, p ro se , Appellee.
#### Mary GUIDROZ v. HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF the PARISH OF TERREBONNE, State of Louisiana, (The Owner and Operator of Terrebonne General Medical Center) and Connie Perkins, R.N.

No. 2003-CC-1345.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Hospital Service District No. 1 of the Parish of Terrebonne; (The Owner and Operator of Terrebonne General Medical Center); Perkins, Connie R. N.; Louisiana State of; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 127,499; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CW 2520.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**     **CERTIFICATION OF CEO OF PERIODIC REPORT**    The undersigned, Kevin R. Callahan, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Affirmative InsuranceHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of his knowledge, that:(1) the Interim Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period endedJune 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.Dated: August 9, 2006              /s/ Kevin R. Callahan   Kevin R. Callahan   Interim Chief Executive Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
RE: REINSTATEMENT OF ELECTRONIC FILING PILOT PROGRAM IN RICHLAND COUNTY

Appellate Case No. 2015-002439

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

February 16, 2018

ORDER

**95On November 14, 2017, the Pilot Program for the Electronic Filing (E-Filing) of documents *255in the Court of Common Pleas was expanded to include Richland County. However, E-Filing was suspended in Richland County by Order dated November 16, 2017, due to unforeseen technical issues that made E-Filing problematic for attorneys and court personnel. Based on the substantial work performed by South Carolina Judicial Department and Richland County staff, the technical issues that adversely affected E-Filing have been remedied.

Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution,

IT IS ORDERED that the Pilot Program for the E-Filing of documents in the Court of Common Pleas, which was established by Order dated December 1, 2015, shall be reinstated in Richland County effective March 8, 2018. Effective March 8, 2018, all filings in all common pleas cases commenced or pending in Richland County must be E-Filed if the party is represented by an attorney, unless the type of case or the type of filing is excluded from the Pilot Program. The counties currently designated for mandatory E-Filing are as follows:

```
**96Aiken Allendale Anderson Bamberg Barnwell Beaufort Cherokee Clarendon Colleton Edgefield Georgetown Greenville Greenwood Hampton Horry Jasper Kershaw Laurens Lee Lexington McCormick Newberry Oconee Pickens Saluda Spartanburg Sumter Williamsburg **York - Effective February 27, 2018****Richland - Reinstated March 8, 2018**
```

Attorneys should refer to the South Carolina Electronic Filing Policies and Guidelines, which were adopted by the Supreme Court on October 28, 2015, and the training materials available on the E-Filing Portal page at *http://www.sccourts.org/efiling/* to determine whether any specific filings are exempted from the requirement that they be E-Filed. Attorneys who have cases pending in Pilot Counties are strongly encouraged to review, and to instruct their staff to review, the training materials available on the E-Filing Portal page.

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*

Donald W. Beatty

Chief Justice of South Carolina
#### Belinda LEVY, Corliss Aguilard, Laurie Alexander, Cheryl Beaver, Mary Lou Blakeman, Pamela Braud, Edward J. Domingue, Celeste Falconer, Dan Hahn, Shirley Knight, Roberta Land, Sandra Lawhon, Lynn Marzoni, David Monahan, Valerie S. Monahan, Dave Moore, Laura Morris, Marilyn Palmero, Merry Parker, Jackie Philips, Erin Powell, Tom Sealy, Rebecca M. Sendai, Kathleen Severs, Dianne Short, Starr Steckler, Karen Shipley, Glenda Thorne and Greta Woods v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 2003-C-1221.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In Re BELINDA LEVY, CORLISS AGUILARD, LAURIE ALEXANDER, CHERYL BEAVER, MARY LOU BLAKEMAN, PAMELA BRAUD, EDWARD J. DOMINGUE, CELESTE FALCONER, DAN HAHN, SHIRLEY KNIGHT, ROBERTA LAND, SANDRA LAWHON, LYNN MARZONI, DAVID MONAHAN, VALERIE S. MONAHAN, DAVE MOORE, LAURA MORRIS, MARILYN PALMERO, MERRY PARKER, JACKIE PHILIPS, ERIN POWELL. TOM SEALY, REBECCA M. SENCIAL, KATHLEEN SEVERS, DIANNE SHORT, STARR STECKLER, KAREN SHIPLEY, GLENDA THORNE AND GRETA WOODS; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated, June 27, 2003; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. C, No. 89-15642; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No.2002 CA 0781.

Reconsideration granted. Writ denied.
# CE2004065EN.01016602.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/166 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/166

---

(2004/C 65 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2511/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Ventimiglia to Monaco railway line out of use: appeal to the Commission to approach the French authorities

Subject:

The fact that the stretch of line between Ventimiglia and Monaco is out of use owing to the work being carried out in the Roquebrune tunnel is severely harming Ventimiglia's economy, bearing in mind also that the work is scheduled to continue until at least the end of 2003.

What representations will the Commission make to the French authorities to persuade them to speed up the work to repair the damage to the tunnel, thereby enabling the above-mentioned track section to be brought back into service as quickly as possible?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

(12 September 2003)

The Ventimiglia-Moncao line was closed to traffic following a cave-in which occurred in mid-June 2003 in the tunnel which runs under Monaco. Even though the infrastructure manager concerned (Réseau Ferré de France) is having to carry out considerable repair work, service is due to resume gradually by the end of the year. Since this operation is akin to maintenance rather than construction of new infrastructure or upgrading of existing infrastructure, it would not have been possible, even if the French authorities had so requested, for the project to be co-financed from the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) budget.

For a Member State temporarily to obstruct an important route may constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods. The Court has already found that measures which delay the movement of goods between Member States have the effect of restricting the free movement of goods in a way which is incompatible with Article 28 of the EC Treaty (1).

1

However, like Advocate General Jacobs in the Schmidberger case (2), the Commission believes there can be no absolute obligation to ensure that goods can move unimpeded at all times and at any cost, failure to observe which would always be an infringement of Community law. For instance, delays caused when repair work has to be carried out are an inherent part of rail transport and the causes may be unavoidable, especially where user safety is at stake.

2

In view of the above and of the information supplied to it, the Commission does not believe that the interruption of the Ventimiglia-Monaco rail service by the work under way in the Roquebrune tunnel is liable to constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods such as is incompatible with Article 28 of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  Judgment of 26 September 2000 in Case C-23/99 Commission v France, ECR I-7653, paragraph 22.

1

v

(2)  C-112/00, ECR 2003.

2

1

---
Heather Dean MILLS, Plaintiff, v. Chad Mckinley DAVIS, Defendant.

No. COA16-737

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 19, 2017

VACATED IN PART. REMANDED.
GRIFFIN v. FREEMAN, et al.

322P15-7

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Mr. Raymond Alan Griffin, For Griffin, Raymond Alan

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of March 2018 by Petitioner for Notice of Appeal of Writ of Mandamus Denial:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
Exhibit 32.1

Section 906 CEO Certification

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Rodolfo Prieto, Chief Executive Officer of the Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30 2009 (the Report)fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.D. 78m); and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    Rodolfo Prieto  
|Rodolfo Prieto         
|Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 13, 2009



27