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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report of The Flooring Zone, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew Limpert, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the 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.

 

 

| Date: April 15, 2008 | /s/ Andrew Limpert |  
 

Andrew Limpert

 

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

  |
|----------------------|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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 Mercari Communications Group, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Scott L. Mathis, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge, 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/ Scott L. MathisScott L. MathisTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: September 29, 2010








This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel, are you 

a 

 Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this Court’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 U.S.C.§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 34 Filed: 09/08/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:479
Exhibit 31.2

 

Rule 13a – 14(a)/15(d) – 14(a)

 

I, Gordon Samson, certify that:
|   | 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cascade Energy Inc.; |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and 

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date:  June 14, 2006
|   | /s/ Gordon Samson |  
 

Gordon Samson

 
 

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

D/ljm/868578.1

 

 

  |
|--------|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
9925.

#### Simpson *et al v.*Clary *et al.*

Decided January 15, 1919.

Rehearing denied January 28, 1919.

Complaint; from Wilkes superior court—Judge Walker. June *Í,*1918.

*W. A. Slaton, Colley & Colley,*for plaintiffs iii error.

*C. E. Sutton, S. H. Sibley, C. D. Colley,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. The court did not err, when the charge is considered as a whole, in not giving the charge requested in the exact language of the requests. The charge of the court fully and fairly presented the issues, and is not subject to the criticisms urged by the plaintiffs in error.

2. The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. Eor none of the reasons assigned do we find error requiring a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
From: Christoph Roesch <christoph.roesch@franke.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:00 AM

To: privacyframework <privacyframework@nist.gov>

Subject: NIST Privacy Framework: Preliminary Draft Comments

Dear all,

good job... I just had little time available and so just a five change requests... refer to comments excel attached.

Best regards,

Christoph

--

Kind Regards | Freundliche Grüsse

Christoph Roesch | Head of Privacy Franke Group | Legal & Compliance

Franke Management AG | Franke-Strasse 2 | 4663 Aarburg | Switzerland

Phone: +41 62 787 3782 | Mobile: +41 79 880 85 13 | Christoph.Roesch@franke.com | www.franke.com
Comment 

#

Organization 

Name

Submitted By 

(Name/Email)

Page 

#

Line 

# Section

Comment

(Include rationale for 

comment) Suggested Change

Type of 

Comment 

(General/Editorial

/Technical)

1 Franke 

Group, 

Switzerland

christophroesch@web.de 6 203 1.2.1' Figure 2: Privacy Risk 

description

Privacy Risk - associated 

with the personal 

freedom of individuals

General

2 Franke 

Group, 

Switzerland

christophroesch@web.de 7 247 1.2.1' Figure 3: Individual 

experiences direct 

impact...

"Indidual experiences 

direct or indirect impact 

...."

General

3 Franke 

Group, 

Switzerland

christophroesch@web.de 4 126 1.0 missing indirect 

impacts on individuals 

(refer to line above)

"with follow-on effects on 

data subjects or

organizations' 

reputuation, bottom line, 

and furture prospects for 

growth."

General

4 Franke 

Group, 

Switzerland

christophroesch@web.de 21 684 Appendix 

A, 

Table 1

ID.IM-P5: not just the 

purpose, but also the 

origin of the data (by 

3rd party, individual 

itself, etc) and the legal 

basis (contract, 

individuals explicit 

consent, legitimate 

interest etc.)

The origin of the data as 

well as the purposes and 

legal bases for the data 

actions are inventoried.

General

5 Franke 

Group, 

Switzerland

christophroesch@web.de 30 687 Terms "Individual (...cannot 

be) a group of persons" 

as I think a individual 

needs to be an 

identifiable subject

A single person or a group 

of identifiable persons, 

including...

General
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1549** 

KIMBERLY ANN SHREVE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

KRISTEN LYNN FETTER; TINA TANT HOAGLAND; C. COLON WILLOUGHBY, JR. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the U nited States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- cv
- 00157

- H )

Submitted : July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affir med by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kimberly Ann Shreve, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kimberly Ann Shreve appeals the district court ’ s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recomm endation and dismissing

her civil action

. On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because Shreve ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition, Shreve ha s forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. Accordingly , we affirm the

district court ’ s judgment . 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.

AFFIRMED
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number: ________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Webinar: Employee Development Through Rotational and Exchange 

Programs

Date(s): July 26, 2022 CEU Hours Earned: 1.5 hrs 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: This webinar will explore some of the challenges and opportunities for facilitating a more mobile 

cybersecurity workforce to ensure that employee skills are being continuously developed and employer needs are being 

addressed to minimize cybersecurity risks for their organization. Webinar attendees heard presentations from:

• Erika L. Viola, Human Capital Strategist, Forecasting and Methods/Talent Management, U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management

• Chimia Carr-Nelson, Cyber Human Capital Strategist, Department of Defense

• Ayanna Baker, Senior Consultant, Booz Allen Hamilton

• Oumou Ly, Senior Advisor, Office of the Executive Assistant Director for Cybersecurity, 

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

• Georgia Haddad, Manager, Federal Workforce Programs, Partnership for Public Service

Location: Virtual Event; https://www.nist.gov/news-events/events/2022/07/federal-cybersecurity-workforce-

 webinar-employee-development-through

Name of Meeting Host: Antonio “T” Scurlock, Deputy Chief Learning Officer, Cybersecurity and 

 Infrastructure Security Agency

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice

nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.
##### 



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, Kiran Patel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Solectron Corporation on Form 10-Q for
the three-month period ended May 27, 2005 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 Form 10-Q
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Solectron Corporation. Date: July 6, 2005 /s/ Kiran PatelKiran PatelExecutive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
**Exhibit 13.14**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Launch Company Limited (the“Company”) for the annual period ended 31 December 2008 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Rick Medlock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in thePeriodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: 29 April 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7350

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARC PIERRE HALL, a/k/a Marc Valeriano, a/k/a Fella,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:95-cr-00005-FDW-1; 3:99-cv-00061-

FDW)

Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 22, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Pierre Hall, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marc Pierre Hall appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(d)(1) motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it 

for lack of jurisdiction.*

 Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly 

construed Hall’s Rule 60(d)(1) motion as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked 

jurisdiction because Hall failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. The dismissal, 

however, “must be one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no 

power to adjudicate and dispose of a claim on the merits.” S. Walk at Broadlands 

Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 

2013). Accordingly, we affirm as modified to reflect that Hall’s motion is dismissed 

without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Hall’s motion for appointment of 

counsel.

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003), we construe Hall’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to 

file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that his claims do 

not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization 

to file a successive § 2255 motion. 

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s 

jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60 motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 

motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MARCH 10, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14506

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00033-CV-5

CHARLES SCOTT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEPUTY SHERIFF JAMES MERCIER,

Deputy Sheriff of Brantley,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(March 10, 2008)

Before BIRCH, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Charles Scott appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against James Mercier, the Deputy Sheriff of Brantley

County, Georgia. In his complaint, Scott alleged Mercier, while acting under

color of state law, entered his property without permission and, when Scott

declined Mercier’s commands, attacked and beat him. Scott explicitly sued

Mercier only in his official capacity, asserting various state law torts and a § 1983

action alleging a violation of Scott’s civil rights. Mercier first moved for summary

judgment on February 12, 2007. During a status conference on June 29, 2007,

Mercier asked to file an amendment to his summary judgment motion. The district

court instructed Mercier to file his amendment within three weeks, and allowed

Scott two weeks to respond. Mercier filed his amended motion on July 20, 2007,

arguing that sovereign immunity barred the suit. Scott replied on July 30, 2007. 

On September 14, 2007, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of

Mercier on the § 1983 claims, finding Mercier was entitled to Eleventh

Amendment sovereign immunity as a state actor under Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d

1304 (11th Cir. 2003) and, alternatively, that Scott had failed to challenge an

official policy or practice of the Brantley County Sheriff’s Office. The district

court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Scott’s state law claims

and dismissed them without prejudice.
 We decline to address Scott’s argument that the district court erred in considering 1

Mercier’s amended summary judgment motion asserting sovereign immunity. Scott argues the

court permitted Mercier to amend his summary judgment motion well outside the date set by the

original Scheduling Order without demonstrating the good cause required by FED. R. CIV. PRO.

16(b)(4). We will not address this argument because Scott was given ample opportunity to raise

it below both at the status conference and when he responded to Mercier’s amended motion. By

failing to do so, Scott waived the argument. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d

1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A]n issue not raised in the district court and raised for the first

time in an appeal will not be considered by this court.” (quotations omitted)).

3

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs in this case and find

no merit to any of Scott’s issues on appeal. We affirm for the reasons set forth in

1

the district court’s well-reasoned order of September 14, 2007.

AFFIRMED.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 333

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should support

Italy’s inclusion as a permanent member of the United Nations Security

Council if there is to be an expansion of this important international

body.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Mr. GEPHARDT (for himself, Mr. ENGEL, and Mr. PASCRELL) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States

should support Italy’s inclusion as a permanent member

of the United Nations Security Council if there is to

be an expansion of this important international body.

Whereas Italy organized and led a multi-national peace enforcement operation in Albania last spring under United

Nations authority to restore order and organize democratic elections;

Whereas Italy provided the second largest United Nations

troop contingent in Somalia;

Whereas in 1983 Italy joined the United States in a multilateral force to bring peace and stability to Lebanon and
2

HRES 333 IH

Italy still participates in the ongoing U.N. peacekeeping

force in Lebanon;

Whereas Italy brokered the peace settlement in Mozambique

and led the peacekeeping force that implemented it;

Whereas Italy hosts at Brindisi the sole United Nations

logistical base supporting peacekeeping operations worldwide;

Whereas Italy’s strategic location in the Mediterranean

makes it an indispensable partner in security operations

in multiple zones of instability;

Whereas Italy hosts airbases from which the United States

and its NATO partners have conducted air operations

over the former Yugoslavia;

Whereas Italy is the world’s fifth largest economy and next

year becomes the U.N.’s fifth largest assessed contributor;

Whereas Italy’s contribution to the U.N. is greater than that

of Britain, Russia and China, three permanent members

of the Security Council;

Whereas President Clinton stated, ‘‘Italy has been and continues to be one of our closest allies and strategic partners in the world community; and

Whereas the U.S. State Department has been actively supporting a reorganization plan that would give Germany

and Japan permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, to the exclusion of Italy: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the

2 Congress—
3

HRES 333 IH

1 (1) urges the President to oppose any reorga2 nization plan for the expansion of the Security

3 Council which does not include Italy;

4 (2) urges the President to support Italy’s inclu5 sion as a permanent member if there is to be an ex6 pansion of the United Nations Security Council; and

7 (3) urges the State Department to develop a re8 organization plan of the United Nations Security

9 Council that would incorporate nations that have

10 played a significant role in fostering world peace and

11 stability such as Italy.

Æ