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



Certification of Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Richland Resources
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Dated:  September 14, 2012



|By: | /s/ Kenneth A. Goggans 
|--- | -----------------------
|    | Kenneth A. Goggans     
|    | Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 8-K



CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report (Date of earliest
event reported)      October 25, 1999




  Nevada             0-27715            94-3342064
(State or other     (Commission        (IRS Employer
jurisdiction        file number)       Identification No.)
of incorporation)


1128-789 West Pender  Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6C1H2
(Address of principle executive offices)



Registrant's telephone number,
including area code     (604) 608-6828


N/A

(Former name or former address, if changed
since last report)







Item 2.  Disposition of Assets - Acquisition of Asset

	On September 28, 1999, the issuer entered into
a Letter of Intent to exchange 100% of the common stock
of its wholly owned subsidary Global E-COM, S.A. to
Dimension House, Inc., a Nevada corporation in exchange
for common voting stock of Dimension House, Inc.

	On October 2, 1999, the issuer entered into a
purchase agreement with Dimension House, Inc., to
transfer its wholly owned subsidiary Global E-COM,
S.A., a Costa Rican corporation to Dimension House,
Inc., for ten million shares of $.0001 par value
common stock, subject to the approval of the
shareholders of Dimension House, Inc.

	The shareholders approved the purchase on
October 15, 1999.

	On October 27, 1999, 10,000,000 shares of
Dimension House, Inc., were issued to the issuer.
E-Vegas.COM, Inc., as of October 31, 1999 was a
forty seven (47%) percent shareholder and would
be a control shareholder.

	Dimension House, Inc., changed its name
to Presidents Telecom, Inc., on October 28, 1999.

	Global E-COM, S.A., had a net equity value
of $561,849 as of October 2, 1999.  On October 31,
1999 the market value of the common stock received
was two million five hundred thousand dollars
($2,500,000) on a discounted basis or $0.25 per
share and an exchange value of  $.06 per share.
The future sale of any of the acquired securities
will be under affiliate control rules.

Item 7.  Financial Statement

	The following statements are included
or a preferred basis
















Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed in its behalf
 by the undersigned hereinto duly authorized.




						E-Vegas.COM, Inc.




						Edward B. Gallagher, President

November 15, 1999
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SHANE SHAW
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 16

- 3957 and 4D16

- 3966

[ July 6, 2017 ]

Consolidated a ppeal s of order s denying rule 3.800 motion from the

Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Dennis D. Bailey , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 11

- 7302 CF10A and 11

- 7595

CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Stacey Kime, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appel lant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed without prejudice.

M AY
, C IKLIN and L EVINE
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2010035EN.01000102.xml

| 12.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5584 — Belgacom/BICS/MTN)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 35/02

On 26 October 2009, 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:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5584. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5584. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2011306EN.01000701.xml

| 18.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 306/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 306/7

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2011/C 306/06

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 | 12.7.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 12.7.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or Group of stocks | BSF/8910- |
| Species | Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) |
| Zone | EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 887293 |

Date and time of closure

12.7.2011

Duration

12.7.2011-31.12.2011

Member State

Spain

Stock or Group of stocks

BSF/8910-

Species

Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo)

Aphanopus carbo

Zone

EU and international waters of VIII, IX and X

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

887293

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

---
# C_2010074EN.01000801.xml

| 24.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5664 — Bilfinger Berger/MCE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 74/04

On 18 December 2009, 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:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5664. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5664. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DUANE JARRELL, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10cv137-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit. (Doc. 35). On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit granted the

defendant’s motion for remand and remanded to this court with instructions to remand the

matter in full to the Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of conducting further

proceedings, as provided by sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

A remand under sentence four is considered a final judgment. Bergen v.

Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006). Thus, absent a court order stating

otherwise, a successful plaintiff’s counsel would normally have fourteen days after the

order of remand to file a motion with the District Court requesting an award of attorney

fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). This Rule has been interpreted by the Eleventh Circuit

to even apply to a request for fees to be paid from plaintiff’s past due benefits pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Bergen, 454 F.3d at 1277-78. However, plaintiff's counsel in such

a case will not know the amount of benefits - and therefore fees - until after the

Commissioner awards benefits, which typically takes longer than fourteen days after the

entry of judgment. Therefore, an extension of time to seek such fees is warranted, and

was recommended by the Bergen opinion. Id. 

Case 1:10-cv-00137-MP-GRJ Document 36 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment remanding this case to the

Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of conducting further proceedings, as

provided by sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

2. Pursuant to Bergen, proceedings on attorney fees under the Social Security

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) are stayed until the matter is fully adjudicated upon remand. The

plaintiff shall file a motion to award fees under 406(b) within 30 days after counsel receives

notice from the Commissioner as to plaintiff’s past due benefits. This stay relates only to

attorney fee proceedings under § 406(b) of the Social Security Act, not to attorney fee

proceedings under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the latter of which

may be adjudicated at this time. 

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of March, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 1:10cv137-MP-GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00137-MP-GRJ Document 36 Filed 03/09/12 Page 2 of 2
# C_2010257EN.01000101.xml

| 24.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 September 2010

2010/C 257/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3323 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,49 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4496 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85050 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2054 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3138 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9195 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,624 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 280,85 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9764 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2670 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9861 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4058 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3795 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3376 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8313 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7704 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 537,65 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4350 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,9369 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2890 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 940,92 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1241 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,779 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,3557 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,922 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2971 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8776 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 60,7355 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3323

JPY

Japanese yen

112,49

DKK

Danish krone

7,4496

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85050

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2054

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3138

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9195

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,624

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

280,85

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9764

RON

Romanian leu

4,2670

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9861

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4058

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3795

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3376

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8313

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7704

KRW

South Korean won

1 537,65

ZAR

South African rand

9,4350

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,9369

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2890

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 940,92

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1241

PHP

Philippine peso

58,779

RUB

Russian rouble

41,3557

THB

Thai baht

40,922

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2971

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8776

INR

Indian rupee

60,7355

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### BARNEY v. HIGHWAY COMM.

No. 155 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 740.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 31 August 1972.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7560

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK NATHANIEL HOPE, a/k/a Askare El Bey,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00167-F-1; 5:09-cv-00219-F)

Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Nathaniel Hope, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Nathaniel Hope seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Hope has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed April 28, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-626

Lower Tribunal No. 19-4354

________________

Walter Alexandre Houck Cruz,

Appellant,

vs.

Richard A. Neely, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton 

Hirsch, Judge.

Walter Alexandre Houck Cruz, in proper person.

Chepenik Trushin LLP, and Daniel F. Bachman and Danielle Birman, 

for appellees.

Before SCALES, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. 

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

PER CURIAM.
2

In this probate appeal, appellant Walter Alexandre Houck Cruz seeks 

review of the trial court’s February 17, 2021 Distribution Order.1 Appellees 

Richard A. Neely and Carolyn S. Neely, as personal representatives of the 

estate of Daniel Alen Neely, argue in their motion to dismiss that appellant 

does not have standing in this Court to seek review of the Distribution Order. 

We agree and dismiss the appeal.

For appellant to have standing in this Court to seek review of the 

Distribution Order, he must be an “interested person” as defined by chapter 

731 of the Florida Statutes, Florida’s Probate Code. Section 731.201(23) of 

the Florida Statutes (2021) defines an “interested person” as “any person 

who may reasonably be expected to be affected by the outcome of the 

particular proceeding involved.” See also Fla. R. App. P. 9.170(b) (“[A]ppeals 

of orders rendered in probate . . . cases shall be limited to orders that finally 

determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the 

Florida Probate Code.”). 

1 The February 17, 2021 order is titled: “Corrected* Order Vacating April 30, 

2020 Order on Amended Motion to Stay or Vacate Court Orders; Reentering 

March 2, 2020 Order Authorizing Distribution and Plan of Distribution Nunc 

Pro Tunc as of March 2, 2020; and Authorizing Distribution of Decedent’s 

E*Trade Investment Account.”
3

Appellant’s claim that he is an “interested person” in this probate 

proceeding is based exclusively on a purported 2017 will. This 2017 will, 

however, was determined to be a forgery and was invalidated by the lower 

court’s January 15, 2021 final judgment. This January 15, 2021 final 

judgment was not appealed, and therefore, appellant no longer has an 

interest in, and will not be affected by the outcome of, any proceeding in this 

probate action. Because appellant is not an “interested person,” we grant 

appellee’s motion and dismiss appellant’s appeal for lack of standing. 

Appeal dismissed.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JENNIFER XU, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09cv187-MP-GRJ

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

 /

AMENDED ORDER SETTING TRIAL

By order dated July 17, 2012, the previously scheduled trial of this matter was

continued, to be rescheduled by separate order. (See doc. 149). A telephone conference

with counsel was conducted on August 2, 2012, for the purpose of discussing potential trial

dates. Consistent with those discussions, the trial of this matter is rescheduled for

February 11, 2012. Accordingly, the Order Setting Trial (doc. 146) is amended as follows:

1. Trial will begin on Monday, February 11, 2013. 

2. The deadline to submit proposed voir dire questions to the court is

Wednesday, February 6, 2013.

3. The deadline to notify the court of settlement is Friday, February 8, 2013.

4. Any special request for court reporter services must be submitted to the court

reporter by close of business on Monday, February 4, 2013.

5. All other provisions of the court’s May 16, 2012, Order Setting Trial (doc. 146)

remain unchanged.1

SO ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Noting a pretrial conference was previously conducted in this matter, no additional pretrial

1

conference will be scheduled absent specific request from counsel.

Case 1:09-cv-00187-MCR-GRJ Document 153 Filed 08/09/12 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. BRAHEIM PARKER, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 604 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Richland Resources
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Dated:  June 6, 2012



| | By: | /s/ Kenneth A. Goggans
| | --- | ----------------------

Kenneth A. Goggans

Chief Executive Officer