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 on Form 10-Q of Katy  Industries,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  for the period  ending  March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, C.
Michael Jacobi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  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 the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ C. Michael Jacobi
---------------------
C. Michael Jacobi
Chief Executive Officer
May 9, 2005

      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 Katy Industries,
Inc.  and  will be  retained  by Katy  Industries,  Inc.  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                     - 36 -
NO. 06-14-00217-CR 

TRIAL NO. 44139-B 

PHYLLIS GWEN PRUITT § 1N THE COURT OF APPEALS 

VS. § 6TH APPELLATE DISTRlCT 

STATE OF TEXAS § STATE OF TEXAS 

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT 

Now comes Kyle Dansby, attorney for Appellant Phyllis Gwen Pruitt and files this 

Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief of this cause in the filing of the appeal due February 

23,2-15 and shows the following: 

1. This motion is filed in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

2. Attorney Kyle Dansby files this motion for request of a one day extension to file 

Appellant's brief. 

3. Major inclement weather all over the Northeast Texas area forced the closing of 

Appellant's attorney's office early. At the time of the closing of the office attorney 

was in the process of completing the Anders brief for Appellant, along with the 

requisite Motion to Withdraw as Appellate Counsel and letter to Appellant, along 

with copies of the entire appellate record. Attorney attempted to file the brief from 

home before 5PM yesterday, but attorney does not have conversion software on his 

home computer, and could not efile a Word document. 

4. Attorney requests a one-time one day extension so that attorney's Anders brief 

will be properly filed, and that Appellant is not harmed due to major inclement 

weather. 

5. This is attorney's first, and only, request for an extension. 

6. This motion is not made for purposes of delay but so that justice may be done. 

WHEREFORE premises considered, the Defendant respectfully requests that this, the Motion 

for Extension of Time to File Brief, be granted. 

Respectfully Submitted 

ACCEPTED

06-14-00217-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

2/24/2015 3:05:35 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 2/24/2015 3:05:35 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
~~;e~~ Attorney at Law 

P.O. Box 1914 

Marshall, TX 75671 

(903) 738-6162 

(888) 410-1583 (fax) 

kdansbylaw@gmail.com 

SBN: 24059180 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Kyle Dansby, 

who, being duly sworn, upon his oath stated that he is the person who subscribed his name to the 

above and foregoing instrument, and that the matters stated herein are, to the best of his 

information and belief, true and correct. 

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME on this theJ2Lf:1l:- day Of~ 2014. 

~\\I\UIJIII 

l)~~!-'! f'.'-:i:::t PATRICIA l. YOUNT ~ : :"E Notary Public, State of Texas 

;:~~ ..... i;.;~~ My Commission Expires ""'II~~I~\\\~" May 05, 2016 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Kyle Dansby, attorney for Appellant, hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of this 

motion was delivered to the Gregg County Criminal District Attorney's Office, via email to Zan 

Brown, appellate counsel for Appellee. 

Attorney for Appellant
In connection with the Annual Report of Platinum SuperYachts, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ron Ruskowsky, Chief Executive Officer, President of the Company, and Principal Accounting Officer, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
|condition and result of operations of the Company.                                                  





|\s\            Ron Ruskowsky                    
|------------------------------------------------
|Ron Ruskowsky                                   
|President, CEO, and Principal Accounting Officer
|                                                
|June 26, 2003                                   



---
#### ACORN v. KNITTING CORP.

No. 38 PC.

Case below: 12 N.C. App. 266.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 October 1971.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Chief Executive
Officer of Siena Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

      (1)   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
            March 31, 2003 (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.


May 12, 2003                                By    /S/  JOHN P.  KNEAFSEY
                                                        John P. Kneafsey
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

EUGENE PRATT,

Petitioner

v.

HONORABLE JUDGE WAGNER 

PRESIDENT JUDGE, FAYETTE COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 8 WM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2022, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. The 

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
#### HEATH v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

No. 103 PC.

Case below: 40 N.C. App. 233.

Petition by defendant and third-party plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1979.
Case 1:07-cv-03524-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03524-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03524-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03524-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03524-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03524-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03524-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03524-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 8 of 8
#### Jacob Ryan, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

(By two judges.) — 1. Where A advances $20 to a laborer on a promise of the latter to work it out, and the laborer afterwards refuses to do so, he is not guilty of the offense of being a common cheat and swindler.

2. It is not éncumbent upon the District Attorney to follow cases from that Court into the Supreme Court. (R. See end of Report.) 12th March, 1872.

Criminal law. Practice. Before Judge Cole. Chambers. Twiggs county, 1870.

Ryan was convicted in the District Court of being a common cheat and swindler. The evidence was that Ryan had borrowed $20 upon his promise to return to the lender’s place and work to repay the money, and then refused to comply with his promise or repay the money. Ryan’s counsel sued out *certiorari*before Judge Cole, who held that the conviction, under the facts, was right. That is assigned as error.

(When the case was called here the District Attorney was not present. An attorney stated that he had requested *him*to appear in the case if it was his duty to appear here. This Court said it was not his duty. And so there was no appearance for the State.)

J. D. Jones, by B. H. Hill, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

What is a cheat and swindler? R. Code, sec. 4507. A promise is not a pretence: 2 Bish. Cr. L., 400, 401; 1 Den. C. C., 563; 2 Moody C. C., 254; 2 Rob. (N. Y.) R., 500.

No appearance for the State.

Montgomery, Judge.

The plaintiff in error in this case, represented to the prosecutor, that if he would let him have $20 he would come and work it out with him. The prosecutor let him have the money, and prisoner refused to comply with his *129contract, whereupon prosecutor indicted him for being a common cheat and swindler.

*“*A pretence that a party would do an act which he did not mean to do, (as a pretence that he would pay for goods on delivery) was holden not to be a false pretence:” 2d Russell on Crimes, (5th Am. Ed.) 289. The present case comes within the principle quoted.

Judgment reversed.
Case 1:07-cv-03492-RJS     Document 11      Filed 12/10/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 9 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.1

      

      

      

      

    

     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     

    

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-101652, 333-137102, 333-153419, 333-206420, 333-207946, 333-210151, 333-222294 and
      333-228502) of Partner Communications Company Ltd., of our report dated March 25, 2020 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F. We also consent to the
      reference to us under the heading Selected Financial Data in this Form 20-F.

    

    

    
      	
              Tel-Aviv, Israel 

              

              March 26, 2020 

            	
              /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman

              Certified Public Accountants (Isr.) 

              
                A member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited

              

            


    

    

    

    
      
        


      Kesselman & Kesselman, Trade Tower, 25 Hamered Street, Tel-Aviv 68125, Israel, 

      P.O Box 50005 Tel-Aviv 61500 Telephone: +972 -3- 7954555, Fax:+972 -3- 7954556, www.pwc.com/il
# C_2011032EN.01001501.xml

| 1.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/15

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2011/C 32/09

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 11.11.2010 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 11.11.2010-31.12.2010 |
| Member State | France |
| Stock or Group of stocks | HER/4AB. |
| Species | Herring (Clupea harengus) |
| Zone | EU and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53° 30′ N |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 810989 |

Date and time of closure

11.11.2010

Duration

11.11.2010-31.12.2010

Member State

France

Stock or Group of stocks

HER/4AB.

Species

Herring (Clupea harengus)

Clupea harengus

Zone

EU and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53° 30′ N

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

810989

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03460-CLB Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 8 of 8
#### JAMES v. BOARD OF EDUCATION

No. 79.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 531.

Motion of defendant to withdraw appeal allowed 7 December 1972.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________________

No. 96-20599

(Summary Calendar)

__________________________________

JAN CHRISTOPHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;

JESSE BROWN, Secretary,

Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Houston Division

(CA-H-95-453)

_______________________________________________

February 19, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this employment case, Plaintiff-Appellant Jan Christopher

appeals the decision of the magistrate judge that granted

Defendants-Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. Based on our

review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the

memorandum and order of the magistrate judge, we find, as did the

magistrate judge, that the record is devoid of evidence submitted
2

by Christopher in opposition to Defendants-Appellees’ motion for

summary judgment. In light of the conspicuous absence of any

opposing evidence, we conclude that the magistrate judge properly

granted Defendants-Appellees’ motion. For the foregoing reasons,

we affirm the order of the district court in full.

AFFIRMED.
**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**

|   | (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. |

|   | GFR                    PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.            |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                    |   |
|   |                                                    |   |
|        |                                                         | /s/ Zhong                Ya                Li |
|   | Zhong                    Ya Li, Chief Financial Officer |

----
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 18-4 Filed 06/05/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 18-4 Filed 06/05/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 18-4 Filed 06/05/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 18-4 Filed 06/05/2008 Page 4 of 4
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 18, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 18, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0112. RYAN ANTWAIN HARRIS v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

15CR67
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DARIOUS ALX JACOBS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:10-CV-29-SPM/WCS

TRUST FUND ADMINISTRATION, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 9). Plaintiff has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). Plaintiff, who is pro se, filed an objection (doc. 10). Pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have conducted a de novo review of

the sections of the report to which objections have been made. I find that the

Report and Recommendation is correct and should be adopted.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that his case

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, as the Defendant has

failed to file an amended complaint after having been ordered to do so by the

Magistrate Judge (doc. 7) because the initial complaint (doc. 1) failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Rather than explaining his failure to

produce an amended complaint, Plaintiff’s objection consists of incomplete or

incomprehensible sentences, fragments of legal jargon, statutory and case

citations, and an attached irrelevant Seventh Circuit decision from 1983. As the

Plaintiff has failed to explain or refute his failure to prosecute this action by the

filing of a proper complaint, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 9) is

adopted and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-third day of April, 2010.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SHAHRAM GRANMAYEH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR95-452-S, CA-96-3684-S)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: May 2, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shahram Granmayeh, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We deny Granmayeh's motion for expedited treatment as moot.

2

PER CURIAM:

Shahram Granmayeh seeks to appeal the district court's order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997), and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.* United

States v. Granmayeh, Nos. CR-95-452-S; CA-96-3684-S (D. Md. Dec. 5,

1996; Dec. 18, 1996). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITS REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          63,403
<SECURITIES>                                     3,560
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                             106
<DEPRECIATION>                                      70
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              355
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,461
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,392
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    857
<INCOME-TAX>                                        47
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                810
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       810
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15


</TABLE>
#### F. G. WHITENER v. NAN G. WHITENER.

(Filed 22 November, 1961.)

Appeal by defendant from *Fountain, S.J.,*February 1961 Term of CabaRRus.

Plaintiff instituted this action for an absolute divorce on the ground of two years separation. G.S. 50-6. Defendant answered and counterclaimed for alimony without divorce (G.S. 50-16), alleging that plaintiff wrongfully and wilfully abandoned her.

At the trial the evidence was conflicting as to whether or not plaintiff had wilfully abandoned defendant. Plaintiff testified that the separation was by mutual consent. There was also a conflict of evidence as to whether or not plaintiff had contributed to defendant’s support after the separation.

Appropriate issues were submitted to the jury and were answered in favor of plaintiff. Judgment was entered granting plaintiff an absolute divorce.

Defendant appealed.

*732
      *Williams, Willeford & Boger for plaintiff.*

*Robert C. Llewellyn for defendant.*

Pee Cuexam.

There are nine assignments of error. We have carefully examined and considered each of them. We find no error sufficiently prejudicial to justify this Court in disturbing the judgment entered. The questions raised on appeal involve no novel or unusual legal matters.

In the trial of the cause we perceive

No error.