alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2
                            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 Lescarden Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of 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 result of
        operations of the Company.


                         /s/ William E. Luther
                             William E. Luther
                     President and Chief Executive Officer
                             January 5, 2004
# C_2009247EN.01000801.xml

| 15.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/8

---

Special Report No 8/2009 ‘ “Networks of excellence” and “Integrated projects” in Community Research policy: did they achieve their objectives?’

2009/C 247/04

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 8/2009 ‘ “Networks of excellence” and “Integrated projects” in Community Research policy: did they achieve their objectives?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors′ website: http://www.eca.europa.eu

A hard copy and a CD-ROM version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Communication and Reports Unit |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Communication and Reports Unit

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Thomas Agnello, Appellant.

*People*v. *Agnello,*182 App. Div. 894, affirmed.

(Submitted October 9, 1918;

decided October 29, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 11, 1918, which affirmed a judgment of the Kings County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of criminally receiving stolen property in the first degree.

*Abraham H. Kesselman*and *David F. Price*for appellant.

*Harry E. Lewis, District Attorney {Harry G. Anderson*and *Ralph E. Hemstreet*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

VISION BANK,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv45/RS-MD 

JOHN K. LUKE and GENE

VENESKY,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Image Properties, LLC’s Motion To Intervene (Doc. 11). No

responsive memoranda have been filed as provided by N.D. Fla. 7.1(C)(1).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The relief requested by Image Properties, LLC’s Motion To Intervene

(Doc. 11) is granted. Image Properties, LLC is granted leave to intervene

in this case.

2. The Complaint in Intervention (Doc. 11-2) is deemed filed as of the date of

this Order. 

3. The court clerk is directed to file the Complaint in Intervention (Doc. 11-2)

as a separate docket entry on this date.
ORDERED on May 5, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
----

| 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: October 19, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Rodger D. Spainhower, Sr.                         |   |
|                             |   | Name: Rodger D. Spainhower, Sr.                            |   |
|                             |   | Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                             |   |                                                       |   |

----
#### Robert Henry GREIFF, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19569.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

July 21, 1965.

Carl Maxey, Spokane, Wash., Riner E. Deglow, Spokane, Wash., for appellant.

Frank R. Freeman, U. S. Atty., Spokane, Wash., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, MERRILL and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.

DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge.

Greiff appeals from a judgment convicting him of a violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462, by wilfully failing to report for induction into the armed forces. He was tried by the court, which found that *915he had deliberately and intentionally failed to avail himself of administrative review of his I-A classification. The record supports the finding, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Greiff registered with his local Board on May 29, 1958, when he became 18 years old. On June 3, he filed a request for classification as a conscientious objector, claiming exemption from both combatant and non-combatant service. On June 16, he answered a questionnaire propounded to him by the clerk of the Board. On June 19, he was classified I-A. He was so notified by mail, the card containing a full description of his right to appeal. He did not appeal, did not seek reconsideration, in fact, did nothing at all. On December 26, 1961, he submitted to the required physical examination and was found fit. He was so notified on January 4,1962. He continued to do nothing about his classification, and was ordered to report for induction on September 19, 1963. He did not report.

His only excuse for failure to appeal is that he did not know of his right to appeal because, when he saw that he was classified I-A, he did not read anything else. He also claims that he did not know that he could have requested a re-examination of his classification. The court did not accept the explanation, finding that he chose to remain ignorant of his rights. The record fully supports the conclusion.

Under these circumstances, we need not consider the merits of his claim to be a conscientious objector. Falbo v. United States, 1944, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305; Evans v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 509; Prohoroff v. United States, 9 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 694; Donato v. United States, 9 Cir., 1962, 302 F.2d 468; same, 9 Cir., 1963, 314 F.2d 67. Estep v. United States, 1946, 327 U.S. 114, 66 S.Ct. 423, 90 L.Ed. 567 is not here in point. There the registrant did exhaust his administrative remedies.

Affirmed.
# CA2009177EN.01000301.xml

| 30.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 177/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 177/3

---

RESERVE LIST
   (1)

RESERVE LIST

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/68/08

OPEN COMPETITION

Nurses (AST 1)

(2009/C 177 A/02)

| BAQUET | Sophie |
| --- | --- |
| COSYNS | Eva |
| FRIGO | Paola |
| HEUSY | Brigitte, Marie, Monique |
| SANCHEZ MONTORO | Ana Maria |
| VITRY | Virginie |

BAQUET

Sophie

COSYNS

Eva

FRIGO

Paola

HEUSY

Brigitte, Marie, Monique

SANCHEZ MONTORO

Ana Maria

VITRY

Virginie

The reserve list will be valid until 31 December 2010 and may be extended.

31 December 2010

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---
#### McCOLLUM v. GROVE MFG. CO.

No. 505PA82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 283.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 October 1982.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MARTIN WARNER, 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cv46/RV/MD

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

et al.,

Defendants.

 

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated July 1, 2010. The plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the

report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), and I have made a de

novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as malicious pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(1) for plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial process.

3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2010.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LOUIS J GEOGHAGAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5:10cv103/MCR/AK

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

et al,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this cause on May 5, 2010. (Doc. 1). The complaint

was not on the proper forms and was not accompanied by either a filing fee or a motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, an Order was entered and forms mailed to

him to complete and return on or before June 14, 2010. (Doc. 4). When no documents

were filed by this date, an Order to Show Cause was entered which required a response

from Plaintiff on or before July 2, 2010, and Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply may

result in the dismissal of his case. (Doc. 5). As of this date, there has been no further

filings or communication from Plaintiff.

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed2d 734 (1962). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) also authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey

a court order. Plaintiff has failed to comply with two orders of this Court (docs. 4 and 5),

and he has not otherwise prosecuted his lawsuit. Accordingly, this case is hereby

dismissed.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2010.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# C_2009153EN.01000202.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/2

---

Appeal Chamber

2009/C 153/03

On 16 June 2009, the Court of First Instance decided that, for the period from 1 October 2009 to 31 August 2010, the Appeal Chamber will be composed of the President of the Court and, in rotation, two Presidents of Chambers.

The Judges who will sit with the President of the Appeal Chamber to make up the extended formation of five Judges will be the three Judges of the formation initially hearing the case and, in rotation, two Presidents of Chambers.

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 SaviCorp
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Serge Monros, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|Date: December 16, 2013 | By: /s/ SERGE
    MONROS                            | 
|----------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | 
|                        | Serge Monros                                        | 
|                        | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 PENSACOLA DIVISION

DYLAN HENDRIEX, II,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:09cv345/LAC/MD

WALTER MCNEIL,

Respondent.

O R D E R

This cause is before the court upon respondent’s answer to amended petition

for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 22). Before the court rules on this matter, the

petitioner shall have an opportunity to respond.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Petitioner shall have twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is entered

on the docket in which to respond to the answer filed by respondent.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4 day of June, 2010. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

THOMAS CLEVELAND WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-83/RS-GRJ

LT. KARLA JO BROCK,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 58). No 

objections have been filed. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated 

by reference in this Order. 

2. The parties’ motions for summary judgment (Docs. 49 & 50) are DENIED. 

3. This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings including, if 

appropriate, the filing of renewed and revised motions for summary judgment. 

ORDERED on February 3, 2012.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:10-cv-00083-RS-GRJ Document 59 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 1
[Cite as State v. Sanders, 2021-Ohio-2715.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Appellee, 

 - vs - 

WESLEY LEONARDO SANDERS, 

 Appellant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

CASE NO. CA2021-03-030 

D E C I S I O N 

 8/9/2021 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2020-09-1154 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Engel & Martin, LLC, and Mary K. Martin, for appellant. 

 Per Curiam.

{¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by 

appellant, Wesley Leonardo Sanders, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the 

transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common 

Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of 

the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court 
Butler CA2021-03-030 

prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; 

(2) lists three potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 

S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine 

whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason 

that it is wholly frivolous. 

PIPER, P.J., HENDRICKSON and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
# CE2009033EN.01S00301.xml

| 10.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 33/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 33/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

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

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

| Date:      August 19, 2010 | By:                                                                                                                                                                                                | /s/ Frederick Antonelli |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                       | Frederick      Antonelli                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                       | Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,Director(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial andAccounting      Officer) |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MICHAEL J. LOEBER,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:09cv402/RS-MD

LARRY CAMPBELL, in his official capacity

as Sheriff of Leon County, Florida; and

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

LARRY CAMPBELL, in his official capacity

as Sheriff of Leon County, 

Counter-Claimant,

vs.

MICHAEL J. LOEBER,

Counter-Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion To Depose The Plaintiff (Doc. 65). 

IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B), Defendants are

granted leave to take the deposition by oral examination of Plaintiff.

ORDERED on December 9, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

BEVERLY E. KRUEGER,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-128-SPM/GRJ

THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY

Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Memorandum

in Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification (doc. 39) is hereby denied. As

Plaintiff concedes, the Defendant’s responsive memorandum was itself within

the prescribed page limit. Moreover, Plaintiff’s alternative request to file a reply

memorandum is likewise denied, as the Court determines that good cause, a

prerequisite for the filing of reply memoranda pursuant to Northern District of

Florida Local Rule 7.1(C)(2), is lacking for the following reasons: 

(1) The Court is fully capable of considering the Defendant’s response in

opposition and attached exhibits, along with the Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing

(doc. 41) on the Milwaukee decision regarding the challenged exhibit,

without need for additional argument from Plaintiff; 

(2) Plaintiff had an opportunity to analyze and distinguish cases and review

the record prior to filing its Motion for Class Certification, and merely

Case 1:10-cv-00128-MW-GRJ Document 44 Filed 07/13/11 Page 1 of 2
because Defendant has made arguments in opposition that are contrary

to Plaintiff’s arguments in support does not necessitate further briefing

from Plaintiff. 

DONE AND ORDERED this thirteenth day of July, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

2

Case 1:10-cv-00128-MW-GRJ Document 44 Filed 07/13/11 Page 2 of 2
---

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 Atlantic Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), 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.





Date:   December 10, 2008





/s/ Raffi Khorchidian

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

Raffi Khorchidian,

Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)







---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00377-CV

RODOLFO LUNE, SR.,

Appellant

v.

DARLA WOMACK CAPEHART,

Appellee

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. D15-24244-CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rodolfo Lune, Sr. appeals from a summary judgment rendered against him on 

October 5, 2017. By letter dated December 7, 2017, the Clerk of this Court notified Lune 

that his docketing statement was past due. Lune was warned in the same letter that, 

unless the docketing statement was filed within 21 days from the date of the letter, the 

appeal would be dismissed without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). More than 

21 days have passed, and Lune has failed to file a docketing statement.
Lune. v. Capehart Page 2

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Id.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed 

Opinion delivered and filed January 10, 2018

[CV06]