alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

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

      In connection with the quarterly report of SRKP 1, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB 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,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

         /s/ Richard Rappaport
         --------------------------------------
         Richard Rappaport
         President (Principal Executive Officer)

         /s/ Glenn Krinsky
         --------------------------------------
         /s/ Glenn Krinsky
         Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


May 16, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required y Section 906 has been
provided to SRKP 1, Inc. and will be retained by SRKP 1, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00138-CV

__________________

SARAH WISENBAKER, Appellant

V.

TIFFANY THORN, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 137,501

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 4, 2022, the trial court signed a judgment for possession in favor of 

Tiffany Thorn in a forcible detained suit. Sarah Wisenbaker, Appellant, filed a notice 

of appeal. The reporter’s record was filed on May 26, 2022, and the clerk’s record 

was filed on June 17, 2022. The brief of the appellant was due on July 20, 2022. 

On August 2, 2022, we notified the parties that Appellant’s brief was past due. 

We warned the parties that unless we received a brief and motion for extension of 

time by August 12, 2022, the Court would submit the appeal on the record without 
2

a brief. We warned Appellant that the failure to file a brief could result in dismissal 

of the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Appellant 

failed to file a brief.1

In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution. SeeTex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 14, 2022

Opinion Delivered September 29, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

1 On August 24, 2022, we also notified the parties that the Court was 

submitting the appeal on the record alone without briefs as of September 14, 2022.
SC WC

- 2 2

- 0000 591
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

_______________________________________________________________ ESTATE OF VIVIAN T. LORD, by her PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM H. GILLIAM; and WILLIAM H. GILLIAM individually , Petitioner s /P laintiffs

- Appellant s ,
vs. LESLIE KOBATA, REGISTRAR, in his
o fficial c apacity o nly; PORTER McGUIRE KIAKONA & CHOW, LLP; PORTER McGUIRE KIAKONA, LLP; FOREST B. JENKINS; CH ONG, NISHIMOTO, S IA , NAKAMURA & GOYA , LLLP ; JEFFREY H.K. SIA; DOROTHY P.H. MEISNER; SHANA MAGUIRE; HAWAII FIRST, INC. ; CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT, INC., dba AS SOCIA, HAWA II; and ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF KUHIO SHORES AT POIPU , Respondents/Defendants

- Appellee s .

___________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 22

- 0000 591 ; CIV. NO. 1CCV

- 22

- 0000508 )
ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ. , Circuit Judge Castagnetti, in place of Nakayama , J., recused, and Circuit Judge Souza, in place of Wilson, J., recused ) Upon consideration of the document filed on February

2 1 , 2023 , it is ordered:

1. The application for a writ of certiorari is
rejected

. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-22-0000591 18-APR-2023 11:02 AM Dkt. 25 ORD2 2. The petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition is denied. Petitioners have alternative means to

seek relief because 1CCV

- 22

- 0000508 is ongoing and the vexati ous litigant order and order addressing attorney fees and costs may
be reviewed on appeal. Petitioners have also not demonstrated a
clear and indisputable right to relief because it is within the
circuit court’s jurisdiction and discretion to decide the m otion
for attorney fees and costs. An extraordinary writ is thus not

warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis , 91 Hawai ʻ i 200, 204

- 05 , 982 P.2d
334, 338

- 39 (1999) ; Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao , 59 Haw.
237, 241

– 42, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978)

.
3. The request for a stay is denied. If and when
appropriate, Petitioners may seek a stay in the circuit court
pursuant to Hawai ʻ i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 62 and Hawai ʻ i
Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 8.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, April 18, 2023.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
/s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti
/s / Kevin A.K. Souza
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Irwin Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, (the Report), I, Gregory F. Ehlinger, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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, 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. Dated:
    
    July 29, 2005
    
    /s/ Gregory F. EhlingerGregory F. EhlingerChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 3(i)
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION
 ARTICLE ONE
NAME
  ARTICLE TWO
CAPITALIZATION
 A. Authorized Stock.
 B. Series A Preferred Stock.




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE THREE
LIMITATION ON DIRECTOR LIABILITY
  (A)
    
    any appropriation, in violation of the directors duties, of any business opportunity
of the corporation;(B)
    
    acts or omissions that involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law;(C)
    
    liability under Section 14-2-832 (or any successor provision or redesignation thereof)
of the Georgia Business Corporation Code; and(D)
    
    any transaction from which the director derived an improper personal benefit.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1293

MANUEL SAMPEDRO,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A30-723-748)

Submitted: June 16, 1998 Decided: August 28, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Manuel Sampedro, Petitioner Pro Se. David Michael McConnell,

Philemina McNeill Jones, Papu Sandhu, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Initially styled as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1998), the district court correctly

construed the petition as a challenge to Sampedro’s deportation

ordered in 1994 and properly transferred the matter to this court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1631 (West 1998).

2

PER CURIAM:

Manuel Sampedro petitions for review of an Immigration Judge’s

(IJ) June 1994 order directing Sampedro’s deportation for reentering the United States after his initial deportation in July 1993.*

Because Sampedro never appealed the IJ’s order to the Board of

Immigration Appeals, we find that we are without jurisdiction to

consider his challenge to the order of deportation. See 8 U.S.C. §

1105a(a)(1) (1994); Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700-01 (4th Cir.

1990). We therefore grant the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s motion to dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 24.1--POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW  ALL MEN BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that  each  person  whose  signature
appears  below  constitutes  and  appoints  Steven G. Mihaylo and Kurt R. Kneip,
jointly  and  severally,   his   attorneys-in-fact,   each  with  the  power  of
substitution,  for him in any and all capacities, to sign any amendments to this
Report on Form  10-K,  and to file the same,  with  exhibits  thereto  and other
documents in connection therewith,  with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact,  or his
substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
this  Report has been  signed  below by the  following  persons on behalf of the
Registrant in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

     Signature                            Title                      Date
     ---------                            -----                      ----

/S/ Steven G. Mihaylo               Chairman and Chief          March 21, 1997
---------------------               Executive Officer
Steven G. Mihaylo                   

/S/ Kurt R. Kneip                   Vice President and          March 21, 1997
-----------------                   Chief Financial Officer
Kurt R. Kneip                       

/S/ J. Robert Anderson              Director                    March 21, 1997
-----------------------
J. Robert Anderson

/S/ Gary D. Edens                   Director                    March 21, 1997
-----------------
Gary D. Edens

/S/ Maurice H. Esperseth            Director                    March 21, 1997
------------------------
Maurice H. Esperseth

/S/ C. Roland Haden                 Director                    March 21, 1997
-------------------
C. Roland Haden

/S/ Norman Stout                    Director                    March 21, 1997
----------------
Norman Stout
                                       53
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

 Submitted March 4, 2010∗

Decided March 5, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 09-1999

FRANCISCO J. LARA, 

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the 

United States,

Respondent.

Appeal from an Order of the 

Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

No. A 096-487-227

Order

Francisco Javier Lara filed a petition for review of a final order of removal to 

Mexico. One of his arguments was that the Board of Immigration Appeals should have 

allowed him the privilege of voluntary departure, a procedure that makes it possible to 

apply for legal admission without the extended delay that follows removal. While the 

petition was pending, the Board agreed with petitioner on this point, vacated its order, 

and remanded to the Immigration Judge. The Attorney General now asks us to dismiss 

the petition for review.

 

∗ After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09-1999 Page 2

The Attorney General’s position is that our jurisdiction is limited to final orders 

of removal, 8 U.S.C. §1252(a), and no such order is outstanding. Perhaps the 

Immigration Judge will enter a new one, and perhaps the BIA will affirm it, but we 

cannot “review” an order that no longer exists. Orichitch v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 595, 598 

(7th Cir. 2005); Bronisz v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 632, 637 (7th Cir. 2004). “The order sought to 

be reviewed is no more. Any judicial act while there is no outstanding order of removal 

would be advisory.” Gao v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 728, 730 (7th Cir. 2006).

Moreover, because voluntary departure is available only to an alien who 

represents that he intends to leave voluntarily, see 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(1)(D); Dada v. 

Mukasey, 128 S. Ct. 2307 (2008); Alimi v. Ashcroft, 391 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2004), it would be 

inappropriate for us to assume that any new order of removal is bound to be contested 

in court.

Petitioner’s reply brief does not address the Attorney General’s arguments. Nor 

does petitioner contend that the Immigration Judge has completed work on the 

remand and that the order of removal has been reinstated. Instead petitioner contends 

that this court has already resolved the issue. Yet the decision of a motions panel on 

December 16, 2009, denying the motion to dismiss, did not give reasons. A merits panel 

can review a summary decision by a motions panel on a jurisdictional question. See

Bogard v. Wright, 159 F.3d 1060 (7th Cir. 1998); Johnson v. Burken, 930 F.2d 1202 (7th Cir. 

1991).

We now grant the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the petition, because 

there is no outstanding final order of removal.
#### STEVENSON v. DEPT. OF INSURANCE

No. 111 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 299.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 December 1976.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strategic Internet
Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"). I, Ralph Shearing, Chief Executive Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

| | 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, 2007 |  | /s/
      Ralph Shearing     
|----- | ------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|      |                    |  | Ralph Shearing, CEO, Director

---
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strategic Internet
Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"). I, Abbas Salih, Chief Financial Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

| | 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: | November 22, 2005 |  | /s/
      Abbas Salih     
|----- | ----------------- |  | --------------------------
|      |                   |  | Abbas Salih, CFO, Director

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of the Company for the three months ended
March 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              15
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      288
<ALLOWANCES>                                         5
<INVENTORY>                                        576
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,014
<PP&E>                                           1,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                      23
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              545
<BONDS>                                          1,013
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               27
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                          52
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,939
<SALES>                                            547
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   547
<CGS>                                              461
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      461
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    54
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      8
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  4
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         4
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007166EN.01000601.xml

| 20.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4708 — Gerresheimer/Chase/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 166/03)

On 29 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4708. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4708. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 22, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D19-2183 & 3D19-1953 & 3D20-1281

Lower Tribunal No. 17-13209

________________

Sterling Mirror Company, LLC, etc.,

Appellant,

vs.

The Jordon Glass Corporation, et al.,

Appellees.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William 

Thomas, Judge.

Charles M. Baron, P.A. and Charles M. Baron (Hollywood), for 

appellant.

GrayRobinson, P.A., and Christopher N. Johnson, for appellees.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormand Beach, L.P., 
2

760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (“Summary judgment is proper if there is no 

genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment 

as a matter of law.”); The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1200 (Fla. 

2006) (“Summary judgment is designed to test the sufficiency of the 

evidence to determine if there is sufficient evidence at issue to justify a trial 

or formal hearing on the issues raised in the pleadings.”); Campbell v. Riggs, 

310 So. 3d 68, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[O]nce there is a motion for 

summary judgment that is supported by affidavit or other factual showing, 

the burden shifts to the opposing party to show by appropriate means that 

genuine and material issues do remain to be tried.” (quoting Holl v. Talcott, 

191 So. 2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1966))); Cong. Park Off. Condos II, LLC v. FirstCitizens Bank & Tr. Co., 105 So. 3d 602, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“[W]hen 

a decree of the trial court is brought . . . on appeal the duty rests upon the 

appealing party to make error clearly appear.” (quoting Lynn v. City of Fort 

Lauderdale, 81 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 1955))).