alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32





ESTATE COFFEE HOLDINGS CORP.





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 Estate Coffee Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dave Wehrhahn, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: April 19,  2010
By:
/s/D. WehrhahnName:
Dave WehrhahnTitle:
Principal Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
AGENDA 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Work Group on Worker Outreach 

Cincinnati Airport Marriott 

2395 Progress Dr. 

Hebron, KY 41048 

859-586-0166 

Conference Call Number: (866)-659-0537 

Participant Pass Code: 9933701 

Friday, February 1, 2008

9:30 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Welcome 

9:45 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. NIOSH OCAS overview of Worker Outreach* 

10:45 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Break 

11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. SC&A overview of Worker Outreach* 

12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Lunch 

1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. Workers, Worker Representatives/Advocate 

 Comments* 

2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Discussion, Action Items, Path Forward, etc. 

3:00p.m. Adjourn 

*Time approximate including discussion
# C_2011040EN.01001102.xml

| 9.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6055 — Strabag SE/EW4E Group/BMG JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 40/05

On 2 February 2011, 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 German 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 32011M6055. 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 32011M6055. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00133-CR

ELLEN YOUNG APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 2 OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CR-2013-08214-B

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “Applicant’s Motion to Withdraw Appeal” filed by 

Appellant. The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate 

procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Sue Walker

SUE WALKER

JUSTICE

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 13, 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORP., 

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-69/RS-EMT

ARTHUR ALLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are the Show Cause Order (Doc. 28) and Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 

39). 

Permissive joinder allows multiple defendants to be joined in one action if the 

right to relief arises “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the 

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 

Here, it is clear that common questions of law predominate. Plaintiff represents 

that common questions of fact will also be at issue with only “time and place” 

differences. However, these “time and place” differences make inappropriate the joinder 

of parties who reside throughout the state’s three districts. Permissive joinder is a 

doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right. Its justification lies in considerations of 

judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants. Alexander v. Fulton County, 207

F.3d 1303, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000) (Citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 

Case 5:11-cv-00069-RS-EMT Document 48 Filed 07/07/11 Page 1 of 2
726 (1966). Quite simply, it is unfair to require defendants who reside in the Southern 

District and the Middle District to be hailed to court in the Northern District. I intend to 

sever those defendants who reside in a different district and/or those defendants where

Plaintiff has alleged that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred 

in a different district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Plaintiff shall file a particularized report which (1) identifies the district in which 

each defendant resides and (2) identifies the district(s) where a substantial part of the 

events giving rise to the claim occurred for each of the Defendants – i.e., the location(s) 

where the defendants have allegedly used the trademark infringing products. 

This report shall be filed not later than July 21, 2011. 

ORDERED on July 7, 2011.

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:11-cv-00069-RS-EMT Document 48 Filed 07/07/11 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2

****

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

**Certification**

** **

I, Joseph A. Geraci, II, certify that:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: May 16, 2016

	/s/ Joseph A. Geraci, II 	

JOSEPH A. GERACI,II

*Chief FinancialOfficer*

**

* *
From: [name redacted]

To: NIOSH OCAS (CDC)

Subject: submitted Claim Denied

March 22, 2012

Dear Board Members ,

I’m writing this letter in the hopes of you helping the American nuclear test workers who

were put at risk to serve the national security interests of the United States.

At the present time there are several programs to aid the nuclear test workers in our 

country, the Veterans Administration (VA), the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program (EEOICP) and the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA).

The programs have served their participants well but there is a gap in the compensation, 

the hole in the donut if you will.

The VA obviously covers the Veterans. The EEOICP covers the workers but only if they were 

employed by the Department of Energy or one of its several contractors and RECA is 

covering the Department of Defense workers and its several contractors during above 

ground testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

During the 1980’s nuclear testing was still being performed at the Nevada Test Site. During 

this time DoD employees and its contractors were literally working side by side with the DoE 

employees. The DoE employees and its contractors are receiving compensation from the 

Department of Labor under the EEOICP for their efforts while the DoD employees and its 

contractors receive nothing. All claims denied because we were DoD contractors. This is 

my problem as I’m sure you see it also. We have no one giving us aid in our time of need.

We worked in tunnels which had over 1400 toxic chemicals and substances, including 

radioactive particles. We removed heavily radiated test articles and decontaminated them 

for testing. All this was going on but no one informed us of any of the toxic chemicals or 

substances of which we were being exposed too. I had my radioactive exposed clothing 

removed from me after a decontamination process task. I was never told what my 

exposure numbers were but when I inquired the data was returned to me and read 

“Zero.” I found it hard to believe. This weighs heavily on my conscience every day. I saw 

what it did to my father and I feel that it’s just a matter of time that something may happen 

to me. 

My father worked at the Nevada Test Site in the 1980’s. I also worked there in 

[redacted]. He passed away from cancer which was riddled throughout his body. He had a 

wife, [redacted], [redacted] grandchildren who saw their grandfathers life cut short for their 

protection and the security of others and [redacted] children, who will never see their dad 

again.

I’m hoping that this letter can persuade the members of Congress to amend the Acts and 

help compensate the men and women of the Department of Defense and it’s contractors 

who gave their lives for their country during the 1980’s. 
Sincerely yours,

[name redacted]
|   | 1. | the      Annual on Form 10-K of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2009      (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the      information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |   |                         |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  March      31, 2010 | By:    | /s/ John      Lackland  |   |
|                                 |   | John      Lackland           |   |
|                                 |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|                                 |   |                         |   |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6662

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES LYNN LYNCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-99-322, CA-02-929-1)

Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

James Lynn Lynch, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Lynn Lynch seeks to appeal the district court’s order

and judgment adopting the report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and his motion for downward departure. The

order and judgment is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lynch has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, as for Lynch’s appeal from

that part of the order denying his § 2255 motion, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We affirm

that part of the order denying his motion for a downward departure.

We grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
|   | 1. | Amendment      No.2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended      December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m      or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| BY:    | /s/      Steven Strasser           |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | Steven      Strasser               |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer       |
|   | (principal      executive officer) |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7286** 

ANTHONY FRED MARTIN , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. SUSAN DUFFY , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 4:15

- cv - 02104

- DCN )

Submitted : November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Anthony Fred Martin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Fred Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing without pr ejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action **.** This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 4 7 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we con clude that the order Martin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, William R. Willard, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge,
InfoSpi, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of InfoSpi, Inc.


Date: 7/22/09                               By: /s/ William R. Willard
                                               ---------------------------------
                                            Name:  William R. Willard
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WENDELL RAY HURLEY,

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 3:11cv296/LAC/EMT

DAVID MORGAN

Defendant.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated February 27, 2012 (doc. 30). 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). I have made a de novo determination of objections

filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections thereto,

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 case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s repeated failure to timely

comply with court orders and that all pending motions be denied as moot. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 29 day of March, 2012. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00296-LC-EMT Document 32 Filed 03/29/12 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Moneylogix Group,
Inc. for the Year Ending December 31, 2008, I, Majid Haditaghi, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Moneylogix Group, Inc.
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:




1.
  Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ending December 31, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008, fairly represents in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Moneylogix Group,
Inc.




Dated:
April 1,
2009





MONEYLOGIX
      GROUP, INC.By:
                      /s/ Majid
      HaditaghiMajid
      HaditaghiChief Executive
      Officer,
                        Chief
      Financial Officer and
                        Principal
      Accounting
Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 13, 2023. 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, December 13, 2023 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0156. DEE KLINE v. KAY GREENSTEIN. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2021CV356184
EXHIBIT 23.1

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-155207 and 333-122400) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-157124, 333-146571, 333-137200, 333-132620, and 333-61325) of our report dated September 24, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Media Sciences International, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of and for the years ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, which  appears in the June 30, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 
| /s/ Amper, Politziner & Mattia, LLP |
|-----------------------------------------|

 

September 24, 2009

New York, New York
Exhibit
      32.1




Certification*




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Tryon Alpha, Inc., (the “Company”), on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) pursuant to the
      requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63
      of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350), Mercer Cauley,
      President, principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the
      Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:




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




2. The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
      covered by the Report.





Date:
                August 12, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Mercer CauleyMercer
                CauleyPresident
                (Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal
                Financial Officer)




*  This
      certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing of Tryon Alpha, Inc. under the Securities Act of
      1933,
      as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
      before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general
      incorporation language contained in such filing.