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


Certification by the 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





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), Eric Eichmann, Chief Executive Officer of Criteo S.A. (the “Company”), and Benoit Fouilland, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2015, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 29, 2016





By:/s/ Eric EichmannBy:/s/ Benoit FouillandName:Eric EichmannName:Benoit FouillandTitle:Chief Executive OfficerTitle:Chief Financial Officer











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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134930 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134930 

 COA: 279197 
 Wayne CC: 06-010120-01

KIMLIN DELL PURIFOY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 15, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 37 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 37

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule relating to the extent to which an 
  employer may offer an inducement to an employee for the employee's 
   spouse to provide information about the spouse's manifestation of 
 disease or disorder in connection with an employer-sponsored wellness 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 2016

 Mr. Alexander (for himself, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Perdue) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule relating to the extent to which an 
  employer may offer an inducement to an employee for the employee's 
   spouse to provide information about the spouse's manifestation of 
 disease or disorder in connection with an employer-sponsored wellness 
                                program.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission relating 
to the extent to which an employer may offer an inducement to an 
employee for the employee's spouse to provide information about the 
spouse's manifestation of disease or disorder in connection with an 
employer-sponsored wellness program under title II of the Genetic 
Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff et seq.) 
(published at 81 Fed. Reg. 31143 (May 17, 2016)), and such rule shall 
have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 41 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish 

the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of 

the President and Vice President of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2016 

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to abolish the electoral college and to provide 

for the direct popular election of the President and Vice 

President of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 41 IS 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 by the Congress: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The President and Vice President shall 

5 be jointly elected by the direct vote of the qualified electors 

6 of the several States and territories and the District con7 stituting the seat of Government of the United States. The 

8 electors in each State, territory, and the District consti9 tuting the seat of Government of the United States shall 

10 have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most 

11 numerous branch of the legislative body where they reside. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress may determine the time, 

13 place, and manner of holding the election, the entitlement 

14 to inclusion on the ballot, and the manner in which the 

15 results of the election shall be ascertained and declared.’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Jack SCHAEFER, Plaintiff, v. Emil HESSINGER, Defendant.

Civ. 4724.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Mar. 25, 1954.

*587Theodore L. Koskoff, Bridgeport, Conn., for plaintiff.

Hugh A. Hoyt, Bridgeport, Conn., Reilly & Reilly, New Haven, Conn., for defendant.

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Defendant is a resident of Poughkeepsie, New York and was not served with process within the state or district of Connecticut. The action is one by a Connecticut citizen and resident to recover for personal injuries incurred February 1, 1953 in a fall on real estate of the defendant located in Stratford, Connecticut, allegedly caused by negligent maintenance of the premises by the defendant. It was commenced in this court by the filing of the complaint on January 7, 1954. When personal service on the defendant in Connecticut proved impossible, plaintiff attached defendant’s property in Stratford, and notice of the action, pursuant to an order of this court dated January 18, 1954, was given by mailing to defendant at his Poughkeepsie address by registered mail true and attested copies of the writ, summons, complaint, certificate of attachment and attachment. Defendant entered an appearance by counsel on February 10, 1954, and on February 24, 1954, answered the complaint denying the allegations of negligence and setting up as a special defense the lack of jurisdiction. The question of the validity of this defense was raised by plaintiff’s present motion for preliminary hearing.

As a general proposition, the' federal courts, unlike the state courts, do not have original quasi-in-rem jurisdiction although they do have jurisdiction in actions founded on such jurisdiction in state courts and removed to federal courts. A requirement that regardless of state law and in the absence of some special federal statute, personal service on the defendant be obtained in actions commenced in the federal courts existed before adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has not been changed by the rules. Rules 64, 82, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A.; Big Vein Coal Co. of W. Va. v. Read, 1913, 229 U.S. 31, 33 S.Ct. 694, 57 L.Ed. 1053; Harland v. United Lines Tel. Co., C.C.Conn.1889, 40 F. 308, 6 L.R.A. 252; Davis v. Ensign-Bickford Co., 8 Cir., 1944, 139 F.2d 624; McDowell v. Davies, D.C.E.D.Wash.1951, 96 F.Supp. 301; 8 Moore’s Federal Practice (1st Ed.1938), Sec. 64.02, p. 3311. Since plaintiff here has commenced his action in the federal court without personal service on the non-resident defendant, this court lacks jurisdiction of the person of the defendant in the matter.

Moreover, plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s appearance in the case constitutes a waiver of his jurisdictional objections founded on lack of personal service is not well taken. The defendant here may, without a special appearance, join a plea of lack of jurisdiction in his answer with defenses to the merits without waiving the jurisdictional defense. Rule 12(b), F.R.C.P.; Davis v. Ensign-Bickford Co., supra; Moore’s Federal Practice (2nd Ed., 1948) Vol. 2, p. 2262.

Defendant’s third defense is sustained, and the action is hereby ordered dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 24 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 24

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing 
        Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2015

Mrs. Capito (for herself, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
  Blunt, Mr. Lee, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. 
Wicker, Mr. Scott, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Rounds, 
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Thune, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Coats, 
  Mr. Cotton, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Risch, Mr. Vitter, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
 Barrasso, Mr. Moran, Mr. Flake, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Johnson, 
Mr. Isakson, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Paul, 
 Mrs. Ernst, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Daines, Mr. Sasse, Mr. McCain, Mr. Shelby, 
 Mr. Toomey, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Corker) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing 
        Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 
Electric Utility Generating Units'' (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 
(October 23, 2015)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of S.I.B., C.D.S.B., K.F. and B.F. children v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00906

- CV

Trial court case number: 21

- DCV

- 280651

Trial court: 328th District Court of Fort Bend County

This is an appeal from a final decree terminating parental rights. Appeals from orders terminating the parent

- child relationship are to be brought to final dispositio n within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN . 6.2(a), reprinted in T EX

. G OV ’ T
C ODE

, tit. 2, subtit. F app. The notice of appeal in this case was filed on December 7, 2022 , and thus, the date of final disposition sho uld be no later than Ju ne 5, 2023

. Appellant’s brief i s currently due on January 26, 2023.

Appellant has filed a motion for extension of time to file her brief, but does not specify the length of extension she desires. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and extend the deadline for filing appellant’s brief until February 15, 2023

. No further extensions will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumst ances.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_____ Richard Hightower

____________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ January 12, 2023

______
**
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of AVIANCA HOLDINGS S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Adrian Neuhauser, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 

Date: November 30, 2020 

 
By: 
/s/ *Adrian Neuhauser*
Name: Adrian NeuhauserTitle: Chief Financial Officer**
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer


and
      Chief
      Financial Officer


Pursuant
      to Section 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Dialysis Corporation of America (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
      “Report”), the undersigned, Stephen W. Everett, President and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, and Daniel R. Ouzts, Vice President of Finance, Chief
      Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer of the Company, each
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of our
      knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 at the dates
      and for the periods covered by the Report.




/s/ Stephen
              W. EverettSTEPHEN
                W. EVERETT, President and Chief
              Executive
                Officer




/s/ Daniel
              R.
              OuztsDANIEL
                  R. OUZTS, Vice President of Finance,
                Chief
                  Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and
                Treasurer





Dated:
      March 15, 2007





It
      is not
      intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for the purpose of Section
      18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability
      of
      that section; and shall not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing
      under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.
EXHIBIT 35.1

SERVICERS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Re: Assessment of compliance for services provided pursuant to the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 27, 2007, the Series Supplement,
dated May 6, 2013, the US$ Note Trust Deed, dated May 7, 2013, and other transaction documents relating to SMART ABS Series 2013-2US Trust (collectively, the Agreements).

The undersigned hereby certifies that:

| |  |    |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| |  | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |   
| |  | 1. |  | I, Karleen Munns, am a Director of Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited (the Servicer).                                                                                                                                 
| |  |   
| |  | 2. |  | A review of the Servicers activities during the period from April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance under each of the Agreements has been made under my
supervision.
| |  |   
| |  | 3. |  | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.                        



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: 24 June 2015           
|                             
|/s/ Karleen Munns            
|Karleen Munns
Director       
|                             
|Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134930 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134930 COA: 279197 Wayne CC: 06-010120-01 KIMLIN DELL PURIFOY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 15, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 50 

Providing for an adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2016 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for an adjournment of the House of 

Representatives. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That, in consonance with section 132(a) of 

3 the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, when the 

4 House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, July 

5 15, 2016, through Friday, September 2, 2016, on a mo6 tion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 

7 Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 

8 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2016, or until the time 

9 of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

10 resolution, whichever occurs first. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

SCON 50 ATS 

1 SEC. 2. (a) The Speaker or his designee, after con2 sultation with the Minority Leader of the House, shall no3 tify the Members of the House to reassemble at such place 

4 and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public 

5 interest shall warrant it. 

6 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

7 when the House adjourns on a motion offered pursuant 

8 to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

9 the House shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the 

10 first section of this concurrent resolution. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions)
 Three FiscalMonthsEndedMarch 28,
    
    
    Year Ended December 31,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003EARNINGS, AS DEFINEDEarnings (loss) from operations before income
taxes and before adjustments for minority
interests in consolidated subsidiaries and after
eliminating undistributed earnings of equity
method investees
    
    $
    104.5
    
    
    $
    307.8
    
    
    $
    204.3
    
    
    $
    61.5
    
    
    $
    18.5
    
    
    $
    (1.2
    )Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    (0.1
    )
    
    
    (0.5
    )
    
    
    (0.5
    )
    
    
    (33.8
    )
    
    
    (9.2
    )
    
    
    (0.9
    )Fixed charges
    
    
    16.0
    
    
    
    52.5
    
    
    
    43.3
    
    
    
    76.7
    
    
    
    49.4
    
    
    
    53.6TOTAL EARNINGS, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    120.4
    
    
    $
    359.8
    
    
    $
    247.1
    
    
    $
    104.4
    
    
    $
    58.7
    
    
    $
    51.5FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINEDInterest expense
    
    $
    13.3
    
    
    $
    43.9
    
    
    $
    36.9
    
    
    $
    36.5
    
    
    $
    35.0
    
    
    $
    45.3Amortization of capitalized expenses related to debt
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    4.5
    
    
    
    3.1
    
    
    
    3.4
    
    
    
    2.7
    
    
    
    4.5Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    0.1
    
    
    
    0.5
    
    
    
    0.5
    
    
    
    33.8
    
    
    
    9.2
    
    
    
    0.9Interest component of rent expense
    
    
    0.9
    
    
    
    3.6
    
    
    
    2.8
    
    
    
    3.0
    
    
    
    2.5
    
    
    
    2.9TOTAL FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    16.0
    
    
    $
    52.5
    
    
    $
    43.3
    
    
    $
    76.7
    
    
    $
    49.4
    
    
    $
    53.6RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    
    
    7.5
    
    
    
    6.9
    
    
    
    5.7
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    
  51