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

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Serologicals Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 28, 2003 (the "Report") as filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:
March 18, 2005

|/s/DAVID A. DODDDavid A. Dodd
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 10.1****Compensation Arrangements with Non-Employee Directors**     The following table sets forth the Company’s current compensation arrangements with itsnon-employee directors, effective July 1, 2007.**Annual Retainer**—  $40,000, paid quarterly (40% automatically paid in deferred stock units underthe Deferred Compensation Plan discussed below)**Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Board —**$60,000**Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Audit Committee —**$20,000**Additional Annual Retainer for Chairman of the Compensation Committee —**$10,000**Board Meeting Fees**— $2,500 for attendance in person, $1,000 for telephonic attendance**Committee Meeting Fees**— $2,000 for attendance in person at a meeting occurring on a day otherthan the day of either a Board meeting or another committee meeting for which a particulardirector is compensated, or $500 for telephonic attendance**Options**— 15,000 shares upon initial election (vesting 3,000 per year), exercisable at marketprice on date of grant5,000 shares per year upon each re-election, vesting after 6 months and exercisable at marketprice on date of grantOptionsgranted prior to 2007 remain exercisable for ten years from date ofgrant. Those issued in and after 2007 remain exercisable for sixyears from date of grant.**Phantom Stock Deferred Compensation Plan**— Each director may elect to designate all or a portionof his remaining cash compensation to purchase phantom EMS share units at current marketprices. Cash payout occurs following retirement as a director or, for voluntary deferrals,after 5 years, subject to the director’s limited right to further defer. Payment is based onmarket value of the common stock at the time paid, and is taxable income to the director onlyat that time.**Umbrella Liability Insurance —**$3 million personal liability coverage above normal limits underpersonally-maintained household/auto policiesThe Company also reimburses travel expenses incurred in connection with activities as a member ofthe Board and its Committees, and pays an additional $1,000 each way for travel time to anydirector who must travel more than two time zones from his/her residence to attend a Board meeting.
Order entered December 10, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00999

- CV

LOUIS MARTIN, JR., Appellant

V.

U.S. MERCHANTS FINAN CIAL GROUP, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas Co unty, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 15757



### O RDER

We GRANT appellant’s December 4, 2013 unopposed motion to extend appellate

deadlines and ORDER appellant to file his brief no later than December 20, 2013. Appellee

shall file its brief within thirty days after the date appellant’s brief is filed.

/Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM DIONICS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                         565,800
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  374,100
<ALLOWANCES>                   0
<INVENTORY>                    721,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               1,687,800
<PP&E>                         1,737,900
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,657,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 1,816,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          467,800
<BONDS>                        1,078,600
<COMMON>                       38,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    0
<OTHER-SE>                     1,522,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   1,816,000
<SALES>                        1,126,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               1,126,400
<CGS>                          712,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  712,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               216,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             51,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                160,200
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            160,200
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   160,200
<EPS-BASIC>                  .044
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .042


</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER II—AGRICULTURAL EXPORT PROGRAMS
### §1902. Humane methods

No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the United States unless it is humane. Either of the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are hereby found to be humane:

(a) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or

(b) by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering.

(Pub. L. 85–765, §2, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 862; Pub. L. 95–445, §5(a), Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1069.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Par. (b). Pub. L. 95–445 inserted "and handling in connection with such slaughtering" at end.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–445 effective one year after Oct. 10, 1978, and nonapplicability during not to exceed additional 18 months in hardship cases, see sec. 7 of Pub. L. 95–445 set out as a note under section 603 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.
#### Edna Elieka Sealey, Plaintiff, and Cecelia Preston, Respondent, v Jamaica Buses, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Laura Lee, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 190]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Laura Lee appeals, as limited by her brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated November 29, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the plaintiff Cecelia Preston which was to direct Lee to satisfy a judgment of the same court entered September 22, 2004, in favor of Preston and against her in the total sum of $27,103.36, and denied her cross motion to vacate the judgment entered September 22, 2004; and (2) from so much an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), entered October 19, 2006, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to renew and, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination in the order dated November 29, 2005.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 29, 2005 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered October 19, 2006, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that order entered October 19, 2006 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

*527Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff Cecelia Preston (hereinafter the plaintiff) submitted proof that she tendered a duly executed release and stipulation of discontinuance to the appellant following the settlement entered into by the parties on the record in open court. Since the appellant thereafter failed to “promptly” pay the settlement amount in accordance with CPLR 5003-a, the plaintiff was entitled to enter judgment for the amount set forth in the release “together with costs and lawful disbursements, and interest” (CPLR 5003-a [e]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to direct the appellant to satisfy the judgment (see *generally State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v La Forte,*125 AD2d 563 [1986]; *cf. Weinberg v Transamerica Ins. Co.,*62 NY2d 379 [1984]).

The court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for leave to renew *(see*CPLR 2221; *Spa Realty Assoc. v Springs Assoc.,*213 AD2d 781 [1995]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P, Krausman, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### Simeon Loudenback, trading as S. Loudenback & Company, appellee, v. Reinhold Fredrich, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,639.

Action to recover real estate broker’s commission on sale of real estate. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Alfar M. Eberhardt, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Reversed with finding of facts.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Frank H. Partridge, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50714 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. TOMAS MONDRAGON-MIRANDA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-986-ALL Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing theJudgment in a Criminal Case, Tomas Mondragon-Miranda raises arguments that are foreclosed by A lmendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
From: McWilliams, Douglas A. [mailto:douglas.mcwilliams@squirepb.com]  

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 3:07 PM

To: Greenberg, Alan (ENRD)

Cc: Franz, Katy M.; Kacenjar, Allen A.

Subject: Release of Confidential Business Information for BART FIP Settlement Rule Support ‐‐ Attachment BB United Taconite

SO2 Control Cost Analysis [I‐AMS.FID1382176]

Alan,

As we discussed during our telephone conference on Friday, Cliffs is transmitting documents requested by EPA for use in support

of the BART FIP settlement rulemaking.   These are documents previously marked confidential business information.  In this e‐

mail, Cliffs is transmitting a redacted version of the United Taconite SO2 Control Cost Analysis submitted as Attachment BB to

Cliffs’ September 28, 2012 comments on the BART FIP proposed rule.  Cliffs withdraws its claim of confidential business

information as to the redacted version of this document only.   

Additional documents requested by EPA with redactions sufficient for Cliffs to release CBI claims will be sent today via separate

e‐mails to ensure that the size of the attachments does not interfere with transmission.  

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Douglas A. McWilliams 

Partner 

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP 

4900 Key Tower 

127 Public Square 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

T +1 216 479 8332 

O +1 216 479 8500 

F +1 216 479 8780 

M +1 216 407 4968 

Douglas.McWilliams@squirepb.com | squirepattonboggs.com

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

44 Offices in 21 Countries 

This message is confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the 

intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system; 

you must not copy or disclose the contents of this message or any attachment to any other person. 

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP is part of the international legal practice Squire Patton Boggs, which operates 

worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.squirepattonboggs.com for more information.

#US 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 61.10 Policy. According to subpart A of this part, it is DoD policy to: ( a ) Promote early identification; reporting; and coordinated, comprehensive intervention, assessment, and support to victims of child abuse and domestic abuse.
( b ) Ensure that personally identifiable information (PII) collected in the course of FAP activities is safeguarded to prevent any unauthorized use or disclosure and that the collection, use, and release of PII is in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 552a.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

July 12, 2024

SC-2024-0329

Ex parte S.S. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT 

OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: S.S. v. K.S.) (Lauderdale Juvenile Court: JU19-682.02; Civil Appeals: CL-2023-0281).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on July 12, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Mendheim, J. -- Parker, C.J., and 

Shaw, Bryan, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1787

___________ Velma Metters, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Center for Energy and Environment, * District of Minnesota. CEE; Judy Goepfrich; Robert W. * Henderson, as Employees/Agents * [UNPUBLISHED] of CEE, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 23, 1998 Filed: January 4, 1999

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Velma Metters appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment 1 in her employment

discrimination action. After careful examination of the record and th e parties’ briefs, we conclude the district court’s judgment was correct, and an extended opinion is unwarranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 14, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00445

- CR

Stephen Hollar, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the part ies’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is mad e.

### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 14, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 0044 6

- CR

Stephen Hollar, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the part ies’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is mad e.
Amendment to Loan Documents
    
    (PNCBANK LOGO)
 THIS
AMENDMENT TO LOAN DOCUMENTS Amendment ENVIRONMENTAL TECTONICS CORPORATION Borrower PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Bank
 BACKGROUND
 Loan Documents Obligations
  NOW, THEREFORE,




---



##### 



The Borrower expressly ratifies and confirms the waiver of jury trial provisions
contained in the Loan Documents.
 2




---



##### 



WITNESS
 ATTEST:
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL TECTONICS CORPORATIONBy:
    
    By:Print Name:
    
    Print Name:Title:
    
    Title:PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONBy:(SEAL)Print Name:Title:
 3




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A TO
AMENDMENT TO LOAN DOCUMENTS
DATED AS OF JUNE 2, 2010
 A.
    
    The Loan Documents that are the subject of this Amendment include the following (as any of
the foregoing have previously been amended, modified or otherwise supplemented):
 1.
    
    Letter Agreement between the Borrower and the Bank dated November 16, 2009 (the
Letter Agreement)2.
    
    Reimbursement Agreement for Letters of Credit between the Borrower and the Bank
dated November 16, 20093.
    
    Pledge Agreement (Bank Deposits) between the Borrower and the Bank dated
November 16, 2009 (the Borrower Pledge Agreement)4.
    
    All other documents, instruments, agreements, and certificates executed and
delivered in connection with the Loan Documents listed in this Section A.
 B.
    
    The Loan Documents are amended as follows:
 1.
    
    The Borrower Pledge Agreement is amended by amending and restating the first
paragraph of Section 1 thereof to read in full as follows:
 Pledge Collateral
 2.
    
    The existing Exhibit A to Pledge Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with
the Exhibit A to Pledge Agreement attached hereto.
 C.
    
    Conditions to Effectiveness of Amendment: The Banks willingness to agree to the amendments
set forth in this Amendment are subject to the prior satisfaction of the following conditions:
 1.
    
    Execution by all parties and delivery to the Bank of this Amendment including the attached
Consent.
 4




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
TO PLEDGE AGREEMENT
 Dollar
    
    Issuance
    
    Certificate ofIssuer
    
    Amount
    
    Date
    
    Deposit No.PNC Bank, National Association
    
    $
    2,720,544.40
    
    
    
    11/16/09
    
    
    
    31700343665PNC Bank, National Association
    
    $
    2,705,587.96
    
    
    
    3/30/10
    
    
    
    31700346938
#### § 536.100 Applicable law for claims under the National Guard Claims Act.

The provisions of § 536.77 apply to claims arising under this subpart.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties I Limited Partnership 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000316220
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,795
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       35
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          19,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         11,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,367)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,726
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,827
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,224
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        54
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.56<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>