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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                       TELEMIG CELULAR PARTICIPACOES S.A.
    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            Telemig Celular Participacoes S.A. (the "Company") is filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof, its annual
report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report").
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as enacted pursuant to the requirements of
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Antonio Jose Ribeiro dos
Santos, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to the
best of my knowledge:

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

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

Date:  June 30, 2004

/s/ Antonio Jose Ribeiro dos Santos
-------------------------------------------
Antonio Jose Ribeiro dos Santos
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. (the"Company") for the quarterly period endedMarch 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), Doug W.Naidus, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of theCompany.

|  | By:    /s/    DOUG W.NAIDUS                         |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | DougW. NaidusChairman and Chief Executive OfficerMay 12,2005 |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------|

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except tothe extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filedby the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
#### Martin STONELY, Appellant, v. Dana MOORE and The Dexter Company, Inc., Appellees.

No. 3D02-3168.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 13, 2003.

*906Donald Yates and Kathryn Yates, for appellant.

Charles M. Milligan, for appellees.

Before COPE, FLETCHER and WELLS, JJ.

COPE, J.

Martin Stonely appeals an adverse summary judgment in his suit for imposition of a constructive or resulting trust, and an accounting. We conclude that there must be further proceedings and remand for that purpose.

Defendants-appellees Dana Moore and The Dexter Company, Inc. moved for summary judgment on count two of the complaint filed by plaintiff-appellant Martin Stonely. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The initial question is one of jurisdiction. At the summary judgment hearing, the trial court took the case under advisement. Subsequent to the hearing, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Thereafter, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

We conclude that the notice of voluntary dismissal was a nullity. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420 provides in part that a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action “before trial by serving ... a notice of dismissal at any time before a hearing on motion for summary judgment. ...” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(a)(1). In the present case, the notice was not filed until after the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. At that point, the plaintiffs could not dismiss the action by filing a notice; a dismissal could be accomplished only by stipulation of the parties or by order of the court. *See id.*R. 1.420(a)(1), (2). Since the motion for summary judgment had already been argued, the trial court was entirely correct in disregarding the notice and issuing a ruling on the summary judgment motion.

On the merits, however, we conclude that the summary judgment should not have been entered. First, the defendants had moved for summary judgment on count two only. Since there had been no notice or motion as to counts one and three, summary judgment should not have been entered on those counts. *See Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod v. State,*711 So.2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); *Williford v. Melbourne Commercial Devel, Inc.,*682 So.2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); *Oakley v. Oakley,*439 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

Second, summary judgment should not have been entered on count two, which was a claim for a constructive or resulting trust. The trial court granted summary judgment on the basis of the statute of frauds. However, “constructive or resulting trusts involving real estate can be based on parol evidence.” *Zanakis v. Zanakis,*629 So.2d 181, 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (citations omitted); *Names v. Dawkins,*624 So.2d 349, 351 (Fla. 1st DCA *9071993). *See generally Marks v. Millman,*641 So.2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

For the stated reasons, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
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

In connection with the quarterly report of Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Rodolfo Prieto, Chief Executive 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.

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

Date: August 11, 2008
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 9 -00 418 -CV In r e Ni c hol as Xe nos ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS COUNTY M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Relator Nichola s Xenos’s pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Puryear , Pemberton and Waldrop Filed: Jul y

29, 2009
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of Infosmart Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Fan Chun Wang, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





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




Date:
      April 15, 2010
              
              /s/
      Fan Chun WangFan
      Chun WangChief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19828]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Record of Decision: City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, MO

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise interested parties 
that a Record of Decision has been signed for the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) for an Interstate reconstruction project in the 
City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, Missouri.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Peggy J. Casey, Environmental 
Projects Engineer, FHWA A Division Office, 209 Adams Street, Jefferson 
City, MO 65101, Telephone: (573) 638-2620 or Ms. Kathryn Harvey, State 
Design Engineer, Missouri Department of Transportation, 105 West 
Capitol Avenue, P.O. Box 270, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Telephone: 
(573) 751-2876.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Missouri 
Department of Transportation (MoDOT), has prepared an FEIS for a 
project on I-64/U.S. 40 from west of Spoede Road to west of Sarah 
Street in St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis. Mr. Allen Masuda, 
FHWA Missouri Division Administrator, signed the Record of Decision for 
this project on July 18, 2005. This notice is being published in 
accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU.
    The selected alternative will replace deteriorated pavement and 
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges; and will 
improve geometrics, traffic operations and safety. I-64 will be widened 
from six lanes to eight lanes between Spoede Road and I-170. The 
selected alternative was chosen following a collaborative decision-
making process that included a thorough consideration of all social, 
economic and environmental factors with an extensive involvement of 
resource agencies, local governments, organizations and the general 
public. The FEIS includes completion and approval of a Final Section 
4(f) Evaluation for impacts to parks and historic sites.
    The ROD and other NEPA documents are available on the project Web 
site at http://www.thenewi64.org/ or by contacting FHWA or MoDOT at the 
addresses previously provided.

    Dated: Issued on: September 27, 2005.
Peggy J. Casey,
Environmental Projects Engineer, Jefferson City.
[FR Doc. 05-19828 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M
# C_2008313EN.01000801.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lunds tingsrätt — Sweden) — Svenska staten represented by the Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser v Anders Holmqvist

(Case C-310/07) (1)

1

(Approximation of laws - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Article 8a - Activities carried out in a number of Member States)

(2008/C 313/12)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Lunds tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Svenska staten represented by the Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser

Applicant:

Defendant: Anders Holmqvist

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lunds Tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2003 (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Wage guarantee for a worker employed in a road haulage undertaking having its head office and only establishment in a Member State and which carries out deliveries of goods between the Member State of origin and other Member States.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an undertaking established in a Member State to be regarded as having activities in the territory of another Member State, that undertaking does not need to have a branch or fixed establishment in that other State. The undertaking must, however, have a stable economic presence in the latter State, featuring human resources which enable it to perform activities there. In the case of a transport undertaking established in a Member State, the mere fact that a worker employed by it in that State delivers goods between that State and another Member State cannot demonstrate that the undertaking has a stable economic presence in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
Charles Jeffrey HILL, Plaintiff, v. Dawn S. HILL, Defendant.

No. COA17-1125

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 15, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Andwele Willie EAVES

No. 388P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2018.

Sterling Rozear, Attorney at Law, for Eaves, Andwele Willie.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of November 2017 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 16th 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th of November 2017 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 6th of April 2018."
JONES v. The STATE.

A16A0523

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

May 25, 2018

Tyler R. Conklin, Bentley Childs Adams IV, for Appellant.

Rosemary M. Greene, Sharon Moyer Fox, for Appellee.

Phipps, Senior Appellate Judge.

In *Jones v. State* , 337 Ga. App. 687, 787 S.E.2d 330 (2016), this Court rejected appellant Randall Lee's arguments that the jury verdicts against him for bringing stolen property into the state and theft by conversion of that same property were mutually exclusive. Id. at 690, 787 S.E.2d 330. In *Jones v. State* , 302 Ga. 730, 808 S.E.2d 655 (2017), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed our decision and concluded that "reversal of both verdicts is required." Id. at 733, 808 S.E.2d 655. We hereby adopt the decision of our Supreme Court as our own and reverse the trial court's denial of Jones's motion for new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

Ellington, P.J., and Mercier, J., concur.
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     In connection with the Annual Report of TELE CENTRO OESTE CELULAR PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20 F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Arcádio Luis Martínez García, Executive Vice President for Finance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|   | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Date:  April 15, 2005

| By:    | /s/ Arcádio Luis Martínez García |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                       |
|   | Name:                                                 | Arcádio Luis Martínez    García |
|   | Title:                                                | Executive      Vice President for Finance,Planning and Control and Investor Relations    Officer |
|   |

 

----
STATE v. Joshua BOLEN

193P18-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018

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

Joshua Bolen, for Bolen, Joshua.

C. Ricky Bowman, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of September 2018 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2018."
Exhibit 4.08

SCHEDULE OF OMITTED INSTRUMENTS OF AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF RADIO FREQUENCY BLOCKS FOR 2G SERVICES

As these agreements are identical in every
case except for their reference number and the sector of Region II covered by them, we have, for ease of reference, filed only the relevant standard instrument of authorization approved by ANATEL and provided this schedule to indicate the
authorizations that we have omitted from filing as exhibits to this annual report on Form 20-F.



|1. | Instrument of Authorization for the Use of Radio Frequency Blocks for 2G Services between ANATEL and 14 Brasil Telecom Celular S.A., No 25/2004, dated May 3, 2004.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Instrument of Authorization for the Use of Radio Frequency Blocks for 2G Services between ANATEL and 14 Brasil Telecom Celular S.A., No 26/2004, dated May 3, 2004.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4571 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise its rules so 

as to increase the threshold amount for requiring issuers to provide 

certain disclosures relating to compensatory benefit plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2014 

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

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise 

its rules so as to increase the threshold amount for 

requiring issuers to provide certain disclosures relating 

to compensatory benefit plans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED THRESHOLD FOR DISCLOSURES 

4 RELATING TO COMPENSATORY BENEFIT 

5 PLANS. 

6 Not later than 60 days after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission 

8 shall revise section 230.701(e) of title 17, Code of Federal 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4571 IH

1 Regulations, so as to increase from $5,000,000 to 

2 $20,000,000 the aggregate sales price or amount of secu3 rities sold during any consecutive 12-month period in ex4 cess of which the issuer is required under such section to 

5 deliver an additional disclosure to investors. The Commis6 sion shall index for inflation such aggregate sales price 

7 or amount every 5 years to reflect the change in the Con8 sumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by 

9 the Bureau of Labor Statistics, rounding to the nearest 

10 $1,000,000. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
In the MATTER OF David R. DUBOSE, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001448

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 9, 2018

ORDER

On June 13, 2018, Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law for a period of fifteen (15) days, from the date of the opinion. He has now filed an affidavit requesting reinstatement pursuant to Rule 32, of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement contained in Rule 413, SCACR.

This request is granted and he is hereby reinstates as an inactive member of the South Carolina Bar. This reinstatement is conditioned on his completion of the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School in September 2018. Proof of completion should be promptly provided to the commission *926of Lawyer Conduct and Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*, C. J.

FOR THE COURT
----

Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Giuseppe Caló against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-134/04)

(2004/C 146/08)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 2004 by Giuseppe Caló, residing in Luxembourg, represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the defendant assigned to EUROSTAT as Director of the Agriculture, environment, food and regions statistics directorate, had been reassigned, with his post, to the duties of Principal Adviser to the Director-General of the Directorate-General to which he was assigned. The Commission had also decided to fill his former post.

The applicant has challenged those decisions before the Court of First Instance in another case (T-118/04 Caló v Commission).

In the present action, the applicant challenges the decision to appoint another official to his former post, relying, first, on the same pleas in law as those invoked in Case T-118/04. He claims moreover that the candidate appointed does not have the qualifications required by the vacancy notice in question. He also contends that that candidate participated in a meeting of the Commissioners' Chefs de cabinet at which the filling of the post for which he was himself a candidate was decided. The applicant, on that basis, alleges infringement of the principles of transparency, fairness and impartiality and infringement of the rights of the defence. Finally, the applicant alleges a complete failure to state reasons.

----