alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Anaren  Microwave,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-K  for the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  2002 as  filed  with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Lawrence A. Sala,  President,  Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
of Directors of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section  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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Lawrence A. Sala
--------------------
Lawrence A. Sala
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
August 6, 2002
<Page>
                                               Exhibit 99.3

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Cameron B. Waite, Exec. Vice President & CFO of Penn Treaty American
Corporation, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

    (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the
         quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the ""Report'') fully
         complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: Dec. 24, 2002

                                          /s/ Cameron B. Waite
                                          -------------------------
                                          Cameron B. Waite
                                          Exec. Vice President & CFO
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.04
 
Board of Directors
Anergen, Inc.
301 Penobscot Drive
Redwood City, California 94083
 
Members of the Board:
 
     We hereby consent to the inclusion of our opinion letter to the Board of
Directors of Anergen, Inc. ("Anergen") as Annex B to the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus of Anergen, Inc. constituting a part of the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 relating to the proposed merger transaction involving
Anergen and Corixa Corporation and references thereto in such Proxy
Statement/Prospectus under the captions "SUMMARY -- Opinion of Anergen's
Financial Advisor" and "THE MERGER -- Recommendation of the Board of Directors
of Anergen"; Anergen's Reasons for the Merger. In giving such consent, we do not
admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required
under, and we do not admit that we are "experts" for purposes of, the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
 
                                              PACIFIC GROWTH EQUITIES, INC.
 
                                                  /s/ GEORGE J. MILSTEIN
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              George J. Milstein
 
                                        3
Exhibit 15.3




[BDO Auditores S.L.P. Letterhead]




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-187533, 333-102288 and 333-92491) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option plans of Ellomay Capital Ltd. (the “Company”) and Forms F-3 (File Nos. 333-199696 and 333-144171) of the Company of our report dated April 29, 2015 with respect to the 2014 financial statements of Rodríguez I Parque Solar, S.L. included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015.




/s/ BDO Auditores S.L.P.


BDO Auditores S.L.P.





Spanish Certified Public Accountants





Madrid, Spain


March 21, 2016
# C_2016287EN.01002101.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. v EUIPO — H Young Holdings (animal)

(Joined Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative marks animal - Unregistered earlier national word mark ANIMAL - Relative ground for refusal - Application of national law by EUIPO - Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Particulars of the right on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based - Rule 37(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 287/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. (New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Bullock and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: H Young Holdings plc (Newbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Parrish, Solicitor, and A. Roughton, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 July 2014 (Cases R 2054/2013-1 and R 2058/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Universal Protein Supplements and H Young Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the applications; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the applications;

| 2. | Orders Universal Protein Supplements Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Universal Protein Supplements Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.

1

---
§ 812.1 Scope. ( a ) The purpose of this part is to encourage, to the extent consistent with the protection of public health and safety and with ethical standards, the discovery and development of useful devices intended for human use, and to that end to maintain optimum freedom for scientific investigators in their pursuit of this purpose. This part provides procedures for the conduct of clinical investigations of devices. An approved investigational device exemption (IDE) permits a device that otherwise would be required to comply with a performance standard or to have premarket approval to be shipped lawfully for the purpose of conducting investigations of that device. An IDE approved under § 812.30 or considered approved under § 812.2(b) exempts a device from the requirements of the following sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and regulations issued thereunder: Misbranding under section 502 of the act, registration, listing, and premarket notification under section 510, performance standards under section 514, premarket approval under section 515, a banned device regulation under section 516, records and reports under section 519, restricted device requirements under section 520(e), good manufacturing practice requirements under section 520(f) except for the requirements found in § 820.30, if applicable (unless the sponsor states an intention to comply with these requirements under § 812.20(b)(3) or § 812.140(b)(4)(v)) and color additive requirements under section 721.
( b ) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21, unless otherwise noted.
[45 FR 3751, Jan. 18, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 14366, Mar. 28, 1994; 61 FR 52654, Oct. 7, 1996]
#### § 522.2444 Thiopental injectable dosage forms.
Editorial Note on Part 860
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 860 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008, and at 86 FR 54846, Oct. 5, 2021.

§ 860.240 Procedures for review of a De Novo request. ( a ) FDA will begin substantive review of a De Novo request after the De Novo request is accepted under § 860.230. Within 120 days after receipt of a De Novo request or receipt of additional information that results in the De Novo request being accepted under § 860.230, FDA will review the De Novo request and send the requester an order granting the De Novo request under § 860.260(a) or an order declining the De Novo request under 860.260(b).
( b ) A requester may supplement or amend a pending De Novo request to revise existing information or provide additional information. ( 1 ) FDA may require additional information regarding the device that is necessary for FDA to complete the review of the De Novo request.
( 2 ) Additional information submitted to FDA must include the reference number assigned to the original De Novo request and, if submitted on the requester's own initiative, the reason for submitting the additional information.
( c ) Prior to granting or declining a De Novo request, FDA may inspect relevant facilities to help determine: ( 1 ) That clinical or nonclinical data were collected in a manner that ensures that the data accurately represents the benefits and risks of the device; or
( 2 ) That implementation of Quality System Regulation (part 820 of this chapter) requirements, in addition to other general controls and any specified special controls, provide adequate assurance that critical and/or novel manufacturing processes produce devices that meet specifications necessary to ensure reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
EXHIBIT 32
----------




                              CERTIFICATIONS OF
             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
             ---------------------------------------------------



      The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30,
2009, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 or any other securities law:

      Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of ALP Liquidating Trust.




                                          /s/   Gary Nickele
                                          ------------------------------
                                          Gary Nickele
                                          Chief Executive Officer




                                          /s/   Gailen J. Hull
                                          ------------------------------
                                          Gailen J. Hull
                                          Chief Financial Officer and
                                          Principal Accounting Officer
#### § 71.27 Listing and exemption from certification on the Commissioner's initiative.

Where a petition for a regulation to list a color additive has not been received and the Commissioner has available facts which demonstrate that a color additive should be listed and/or that certification procedure is not necessary in order to protect the public health, he may list such color additive by appropriate regulation and listing in part 73 or 74 of this chapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited  financial  statements for the six months ended September
30,  1997 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                  5,227
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             146
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        5,393
<PP&E>                                 31,517
<DEPRECIATION>                          4,138
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         32,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   9,263
<BONDS>                                 3,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             20,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           32,896
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,278
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             685
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           53
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (83)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (83)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                             (83)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (1.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (1.63)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016068EN.01002801.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/28

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2015 — CompuGroup Medical v OHIM — Schatteiner (SAM)

(Case T-850/14)

((Action for annulment - Community trade mark - Time-limit for bringing an action - Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal to the electronic account at OHIM of the applicant’s representative - Out of time - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2016/C 068/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CompuGroup Medical AG (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Simon Schatteiner (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: F. Schulz and H. Pernez, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2014 (Case R 818/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Simon Schatteiner and CompuGroup Medical AG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | CompuGroup Medical AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

CompuGroup Medical AG shall pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(Chief Financial Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CEC Entertainment, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certifies 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                          
|---------------- |  | -------------------------
|November 7, 2008 |  | /s/ Christopher D. Morris
|                 |  | Christopher D. Morris    
|                 |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7507 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7507

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 203 East 6th Street in Lexington, Nebraska, as the ``Bill Barrett 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 29, 2024

     Mr. Smith of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. Flood, and Mr. Bacon) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 203 East 6th Street in Lexington, Nebraska, as the ``Bill Barrett 
                        Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BILL BARRETT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 203 East 6th Street in Lexington, Nebraska, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Bill Barrett Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Bill 
Barrett Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
39117.

#### MILLEDGEVILLE BANKING COMPANY v. CARR.

Decided October 11, 1961.

*611
      *Robert H. Herndon, Frank W. Bell,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. George Thomas,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

The defendant’s special demurrers, attacking one paragraph of the plaintiff’s petition, a're neither argued nor insisted upon and are treated as having- been abandoned.

The defendant’s general demurrer was based solely on the ground that the petition set forth no cause of action and, accordingly; did not reach the question argued in defendant’s brief that the petition was ambiguous in that it did not clearly show whether the plaintiff was seeking a recovery ex contractu or ex delicto. See *Ward v. Nance,*102 Ga. App. 201 (1) (115 SE2d 781), and citations.

While a bank may set off funds on deposit against a matured claim of the depositor (see *Aiken v. Bank of Georgia,*101 Ga. App. 200!, 202, 113 SE2d 405, and citations), where it fails or refuses to honor a properly presented check drawn on it by the depositor when sufficient funds are on deposit to cover such check the depositor is entitled to recover “temperate” damages for such refusal. See the following cases cited by the trial court in support of the judgment overruling the defendant’s general demurrer. *Atlanta Nat. Bank v. Davis,*96 Ga. 334, 337 (23 SE 190, 51 ASR 139); *Hilton v. Jesup Banking Co.,*128 Ga. 30, 32 (57 SE 78, 11 LRA (NS) 224, 10 AC 987); *Stevens v. Little-Cleckler Const. Co.,*19 Ga. App. 483, 486 (89 SE 597); *Few v. First Nat. Bank,*40 Ga. App. 791 (1) (151 SE 546).

The plaintiff’s petition alleged that he had funds on deposit sufficient to cover the checks dishonored, and that the notes indorsed by him had not matured and were not past due. The plaintiff’s petition set forth a cause of action and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s general demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.3350 Diphenylhydantoin test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A diphenylhydantoin test system is a device intended to measure diphenylhydantoin, an antiepileptic drug, in human specimens. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of diphenylhydantoin overdose and in monitoring levels of diphenylhydantoin to ensure appropriate therapy.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
EX-32
                      SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                      SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of W-J International,
Ltd. ("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his 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 results of operations
of the Company.


Dated: August 12, 2003                 /s/  Edward H. Webb
                                       Edward H. Webb , President
Exhibit
15.2





To the
Board of Directors and Partners of


Icahn
Enterprises L.P.





We are
aware of the inclusion in Icahn Enterprises L.P.’s Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009 and the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-3 Nos. 333-126069, 333-143930 and 333-158705 and Form S-4
No. 333-143929) of Icahn Enterprises L.P. of our report dated May 5, 2009
relating to the unaudited consolidated interim financial statements of
Federal-Mogul Corporation that are included in Federal-Mogul Corporation’s Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.





/s/
      Ernst & Young LLP





Detroit,
Michigan


May 5,
2009
39010.

#### LEE v. WADE *et al.*

Felton, Chief Judge.

“A prayer in a petition praying for process to issue requiring a defendant to answer at a time other than the time provided by law [Ga. L. 1946, pp. 761, 768; *Code Ann.*§ 81-201] is defective and process issued thereon is subject to a motion to quash whether the process actually issued is in accordance with the law or in accordance with the prayer.” *McCoy v. Romy Hammes Corporation,*99 Ga. App. 513(1) (109 SE2d 807). This defect in the plaintiff’s prayer for process was amendable *(Malcom v. Knox,*81 Ga. *376App. 579, 59 SE2d 542), but since the prayer for process was not amended, and since the process itself was amended to conform with the requested invalid term process, the process remained voidable. As this defective process was not waived by the defendants, the trial court did not err in sustaining the defendants’ motions to quash the process and dismiss the plaintiff’s action.

Decided September 12, 1961.

*Lewis L. Scott,*for plaintiff in error.

*Cam U. Young, Franklin, Barham & Coleman,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*