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

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of InkSure Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the "Form10-Q") of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 15, 2009                            /s/ Yaron Meerfeld
                                               ------------------
                                               Yaron Meerfeld,
                                               Acting Chief Executive Officer
                                               (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: May 15, 2009                            /s/ Tzlil Peker
                                               ------------------
                                               Tzlil Peker,
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### Katherine BARLOW, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLANTA HOUSING AUTHORITY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-1779.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 30, 1979.

Myron Kramer, Robert N. Dokson, Claudia Tesoro, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.

Lenwood A. Jackson, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and CAMPBELL *, District Judge.

*

District Judge of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

For the reasons set forth in District Judge Murphy’s opinion in *Harrison v. Housing Authority of the City of College Park,*N.D.Ga., 1978, 445 F.Supp. 356, *aff’d,*5 Cir., 1979, 592 F.2d 281, we hold that appellant Katherine Barlow did not, under Georgia law, have a property interest in her continued employment with the Atlanta Housing Authority. *See Bishop v. Wood,*1976, 426 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684. In view of this, in affirming the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants we need not reach the issue of whether due process was afforded appellant Barlow. On the basis of Chief Judge Henderson’s opinion in the instant case below, we also affirm the denial of class certification under F.R.Civ.P. 23.

AFFIRMED.
EX-10.81C






Exhibit No. 10.81c




June 8, 2007




Via Certified Mail – Return Receipt Request




Mr. Fred Tomarchio

425 Manchester Road L.L.C.

P.O. Box 55

Glenelg, MD 21737




	 	 	 
	RE:

	 	Lease Agreement dated January 1, 1998 by and between 425 Manchester Road, L.L.C. (“Landlord”)
and Monro Muffler Brake, Inc., as successor in interest to Mr. Tire, Inc. (“Tenant”) for
premises situate at 425 Manchester Road, Westminster, MD [MMB #754]






Dear Fred:



Please accept this letter as Monro Muffler Brake, Inc.’s official notification of our intent to
renew said lease agreement for the ten-year renewal period commencing on April 1, 2008 and expiring
March 31, 2018. The rent for said renewal shall be increased annually by 3% as shown below.




	 	 	 	 	 
	4/1/2008 – 3/31/2009
	 	$	11,423.28	 
	4/1/2009 – 3/31/2010
	 	$	11,765.98	 
	4/1/2010 – 3/31/2011
	 	$	12,118.96	 
	4/1/2011 – 3/31/2012
	 	$	12,482.53	 
	4/1/2012 – 3/31/2013
	 	$	12,857.00	 
	4/1/2013 – 3/31/2014
	 	$	13,242.72	 
	4/1/2014 – 3/31/2015
	 	$	13,640.00	 
	4/1/2015 – 3/31/2016
	 	$	14,049.20	 
	4/1/2016 – 3/31/2017
	 	$	14,470.68	 
	4/1/2017 – 3/31/2018
	 	$	14,904.80	 





Tenant shall have one ten-year renewal option remaining.



Please do not hesitate to contact me at 800-876-6676 ext. 3384 if you have any questions relative
to the renewal.



Very truly yours,




Thomas M. Aspenleiter

VP Real Estate



TMA:mc
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Nigel P. Ekern, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Clarus Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004,
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 Annual Report on
Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Clarus Corporation.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.


Date: March 15, 2005                      By: /s/ Nigel P. Ekern
                                             ---------------------------------
                                          Name:   Nigel P. Ekern
                                          Title:  Chief Administrative Officer
HB-1-3555

Appendix 4

Page 1 of 2

(03-09-16) SPECIAL PN

Revised (06-28-23) PN 585

APPENDIX 4

AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION

RURAL DEVELOPMENT CONTACT INFORMATION

Rural Development Website

• Includes National, State Offices and 

SFHGLP Contacts.

Click the link below:

https://www.rd.usda.gov/programsservices/single-family-housingprograms/single-family-housingguaranteed-loan-program

Housing and Community Facilities Programs Administrator

Rural Development

National Office

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Room 5014, Mail Stop 0701

Washington, DC 20250-0701

SFHGLP National Headquarters Rural Development

National Office-Headquarters

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Room 5133, Mail Stop 0784

Washington, DC 20250-0784

Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan 

Divisions

Origination and Processing

• Process Conditional Commitments and 

Issue Loan Note Guarantees

Quality Assurance & Lender Oversight

• Provide Program Quality Assurance and 

Lender Oversight

Policy & Program Management

• Provide Program Guidance and Issuance 

of Rules/Regulations 

System & Implementation Management 

•Analyze, Evaluate, Monitor and Manage 

the Effectiveness of SFHGLP Systems

Click the link below for SFHGLP Contact 

List:

https://www.rd.usda.gov/resources/usdalinc-training-resource-library

Click on SFHGLP Contact List
HB-1-3555

Appendix 4

Page 2 of 2

RURAL DEVELOPMENT CONTACT INFORMATION

Business Center Servicing Office Guaranteed 

Loan Division

Single Family Housing Servicing Branch 

•Electronic Reporting System (default and 

portfolio) 

•Guaranteed Underwriting System 

Agreements

•Lender Loan Closing Agreements and 

Guarantee Fees 

•Annual Fee Collection 

•Transfer of Servicing Form RD 3555-11 

• Security Administration for GLS LINC 

• Servicing and Default Management 

Support 

•Loss Mitigation Quality Reviews and 

Lender/Servicer Oversight 

•Loss Mitigation Exceptions

•Mortgage Recovery Advance (MRA) 

Payoff Requests

Single Family Housing Claims Branch

•Loss Claims and Lender Support

• Post Liquidation Policies and Procedures

•Lender Program Servicing Training and 

Coordination

Click the link below for Servicing Contact 

Information:

https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/

RD-SFH-GRHServicingContacts.pdf

Consolidated Help Desk Support Center

•Guaranteed Underwriting System 

•E-Authentication Questions 

•Guaranteed Loan System (internal to 

Agency)

Email: rd.hd@usda.gov

Telephone: 800-457-3642 

Select option 2 at 1st menu item (USDA 

Applications); then select option 2 at the 

2nd menu item (RD)
#### Kieran E. Condren, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.

Order of the County Court of Queens county affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred; Hooker, J., dissented.
Exhibit
8.1



Subsidiaries
of the Company





|Subsidiary                                                                                 | Jurisdiction
    of Incorporation | Principal
    Activity                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           |                                   |                                               
|BBVA
        Francés Asset Management S.A. Sociedad Gerente de Fondos Comunes de Inversión | Republic
    of Argentina         | Mutual
    funds                              
|                                                                                           |                                   |                                               
|BBVA
        Francés Valores S.A.                                                          | Republic
    of Argentina         | Stock
    exchange brokerage                  
|                                                                                           |                                   |                                               
|Consolidar
        AFJP S.A. (undergoing liquidation proceedings)                          | Republic
    of Argentina         | Pension
    and Retirement Fund Administrators
|                                                                                           |                                   |                                               
|PSA
        Finance Argentina Compañía Financiera S.A.                                     | Republic
    of Argentina         | Financial
    Institution                     
|                                                                                           |                                   |                                               
|Volkswagen
        Financial Services Compañía Financiera S.A.                             | Republic
    of Argentina         | Financial
    Institution
### SUBCHAPTER II—AWARDS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §116(c)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4229, inserted subchapter II designation and heading.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00090-CV

NIKKI NORVELL APPELLANT

V.

BRYAN BRUTON AND THE

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL

APPELLEES

----------

FROM THE 360TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Nikki Norvell attempts to appeal from the trial court’s February 7, 

2012 order granting bill of review in favor of Bryan Bruton. In a letter dated 

April 20, 2012, we notified Appellant of our concern that we might not have 

jurisdiction over this appeal because the order she was attempting to appeal from 

did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. We 

 

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

stated that unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a 

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before April 30, 2012, 

the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(a), 44.3. Appellant filed a response in which she agreed that this court does 

not have jurisdiction.

The general rule, with a few exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken 

only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 

(Tex. 2001). An order granting a bill of review that sets aside a prior judgment

without also disposing of all issues in the case on the merits is interlocutory in 

nature and is not a final judgment appealable to the court of appeals or to the 

Texas Supreme Court. Kiefer v. Touris, 197 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2006); 

Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990). Because the trial 

court’s February 7, 2012 order does not dispose of all issues and parties in the 

case, it is not an appealable interlocutory order. Kiefer, 197 S.W.3d at 302; 

Tesoro, 796 S.W.2d at 705. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 24, 2012
# Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equ ipment

Costs: Tanks

This telecon supports EPA’s development of tank purchased equ ipment cost equation by providing freight cost

information for FRP tanks used in the Steam Electric c ost model.Project No.: 0172.08.029.044 DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: Steam/Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 05/05/2011 Time: 3:00 pm EST

Company Name: Augusta Fiberglass Contact Name: Ryan West

Phone No : (803) 284-2246

Name: Kavya Kasturi ERG

GENERAL SUBJECT: Vendor freight cost request for tanks f or a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system

.



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On May 5, 2011 at 3:00 pm I contacted Augusta Fiberglass to obt ain freight costs for tanks needed for chemical

precipitation wastewater treatment systems for FGD w astewater as discussed during a previous call. Mr.

Hawkins was not available so I was directed to Mr. Ryan West.

Mr. West provided the following costs per mile for tanks o f equivalent height and diameter:

**Tank Diameter & Height, ft Freight Cost per Mile, $**

8 or smaller $ 3.50

10 $ 5.00

12 $ 7.50

14 $ 10.00



### Mr. West stated that the 12’x12’ tank would hold approximatel y 10,000 gallons and weigh approximately 3,500

lbs.

For larger tanks up to 42 feet, the tanks could be oblated to a smaller size for shipping. Mr. West stated that a

42’ diameter tank could be oblated to 14’. The 42’ diameter tan k would then require shipping as three legal

loads (each equivalent to an 8’ diameter tank) and two to three big loads (each equivalent to a 14’ diameter

tank).

Mr. West stated that the 42’ tank would hold approximately 10,000 gallons per foot of height.
### §2108. Selection boards; notice of convening; communication with board

(a) Before a board is convened under section 2106 of this title, notice of the convening date, the promotion zone to be considered, and the officers eligible for consideration shall be given to the service at large.

(b) Each officer eligible for consideration by a selection board convened under section 2106 of this title may send a communication through official channels to the board, to arrive not later than the date the board convenes, inviting attention to any matter of record in the armed forces concerning such officer. A communication sent under this section may not criticize any officer or reflect upon the character, conduct, or motive of any officer.

(Added Pub. L. 88–130, §1(10)(C), Sept. 24, 1963, 77 Stat. 179, §253; amended Pub. L. 89–444, §1(15), June 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 196; Pub. L. 111–281, title II, §212(1), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2914; renumbered §2108 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §§112(b), 123(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4216, 4240; Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8506(b), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4752.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–283 substituted "such officer" for "himself".

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, §112(b), renumbered section 253 of this title as this section.

Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 115–282, §123(b)(2), substituted "section 2106" for "section 251".

2010—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–281 inserted "and" after "zone to be considered," and struck out ", and the number of officers the board may recommend for promotion" after "eligible for consideration".

1966—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 89–444 added officers eligible for consideration to list of items for which notice must be given to the service at large before a board is convened under section 251 of this title.
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/pdf_studies/study120.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/pdf_studies/study120.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
# C_2006178EN.01000201.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/2

---

Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Finanzamt Eisleben v Feuerbestattungsverein Halle eV

(Case C-430/04) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Possibility of relying on the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) - Activities engaged in by a private taxable person in competition with a public authority - Body governed by public law - Treatment as a non-taxable person in respect of activities engaged in as a public authority)

(2006/C 178/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Eisleben

Applicant:

Defendant: Feuerbestattungsverein Halle eV

Defendant:

Joined party: Lutherstadt Eisleben

Joined party:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxation of public bodies in respect of activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities where their non-taxation would lead to significant distortions of competition — Possibility for a taxable private-law association to rely on that provision where it is operating a crematorium in competition with a municipality carrying on a similar activity that is exempt or taxed more advantageously

Operative part of the judgement

A private person who is in competition with a body governed by public law and alleges that that body is, in respect of the activities in which it engages as a public authority, treated as a non-taxable person for value added tax purposes or undertaxed is entitled to rely, before the national court, on the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment in proceedings, such as the main proceedings, between a private person and the national tax authorities.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

1

---
### SUBCHAPTER II—RESTRICTIONS ON GARNISHMENT
# C_2007096EN.01003201.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-220/04) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Tomatoes and citrus fruits - Sample checks - Force majeure)

(2007/C 96/66)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Fraguas Gadea and F. Díez Moreno, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially M. Nolin and S. Pardo Quintillán and subsequently by M. Nolin and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | annuls Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in so far as it excludes from Community financing a sum of EUR 979 554,48 corresponding to an adjustment of the aid to Andalusian growers of certain citrus fruits in respect of the financial years 1998 to 2001; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in so far as it excludes from Community financing a sum of EUR 979 554,48 corresponding to an adjustment of the aid to Andalusian growers of certain citrus fruits in respect of the financial years 1998 to 2001;

| 2. | dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 29.5.2004 (formerly C-175/04).

1

---
### §1904. Advisory Board on Women at the Coast Guard Academy

(a) In General.—The Superintendent of the Academy shall establish at the Coast Guard Academy an advisory board to be known as the Advisory Board on Women at the Coast Guard Academy (referred to in this section as the "Advisory Board").

(b) Membership.—The Advisory Board shall be composed of not fewer than 12 current cadets of the Coast Guard Academy, including not fewer than 3 cadets from each current class.

(c) Appointment; Term.—Cadets shall serve on the Advisory Board pursuant to appointment by the Superintendent of the Academy. Appointments shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the swearing in of a new class of cadets at the Academy. The term of membership of a cadet on the Advisory Board shall be 1 academic year.

(d) Reappointment.—The Superintendent of the Academy may reappoint not more than 6 cadets from the previous term to serve on the Advisory Board for an additional academic year if the Superintendent of the Academy determines such reappointment to be in the best interests of the Coast Guard Academy.

(e) Meetings.—The Advisory Board shall meet with the Commandant at least once each academic year on the activities of the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board shall meet in person with the Superintendent of the Academy not less than twice each academic year on the duties of the Advisory Board.

(f) Duties.—The Advisory Board shall identify opportunities and challenges facing cadets at the Academy who are women, including an assessment of culture, leadership development, and access to health care of cadets at the Academy who are women.

(g) Working Groups.—The Advisory Board may establish one or more working groups to assist the Advisory Board in carrying out its duties, including working groups composed in part of cadets at the Academy who are not current members of the Advisory Board.

(h) Reports and Briefings.—The Advisory Board shall regularly provide the Commandant and the Superintendent reports and briefings on the results of its duties, including recommendations for actions to be taken in light of such results. Such reports and briefings may be provided in writing, in person, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXII [LXXXII], §8215(b)(2), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4651.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1904 was renumbered section 1906 of this title.