alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|Exhibit 99.3
|------------



|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 Prana
Biotechnology Limited (the  "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending June
30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I,  Geoffrey P. Kempler , Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act  of 2002, 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 result of operations of the  Company.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Geoffrey P. Kempler *
      Geoffrey P. Kempler 
      Chief Executive Officer 
      January 9, 2003
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|* |  | The
originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the  Company's
offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | 
| |  | 



---
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00283- CR NO. 03-16-00284- CR

Donald L ee M itchell, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NOS . 717 26 & 729 52, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Donald L ee Mitchell seeks t o appea l a judgme nt of conviction for ag g rava ted robber

y . See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03. The trial court has cert i fi ed t h at (1 ) these are p l ea -bar g ain case s and Mitchell has no rig ht of appea l, and (2) Mitchell has waived the righ t
o f appea l. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea ls for want of jurisdiction. See T ex . R
. Ap p . P
. 25.2(a) (2), ( d).

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: May

13, 2016 Do Not Publish
```

[115th Congress Public Law 294]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 4378]]

Public Law 115-294
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
2650 North Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 
   shall be known and designated as the ``Vel R. Phillips Post Office 
           Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 6, 2018 -  [H.R. 5784]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. VEL R. PHILLIPS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2650 North Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the ``Vel R. Phillips 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 ``Vel R. 
Phillips Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 6, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5784:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Sept. 13, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 15, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
CCR Home Colorado Register Colorado Revised Statutes

Sean.:h eDocket Rulemaking Login**Rul(~ ~Hstory**  Contact Us: 

# Code ofColorado Regulations eDocket 

# Details of Tracking Number 2009-00773

Tracking Number Type of Filing Department Agency CCR Number CCR Title Adopting Agency Hearing Date Hearing Time Hearing Location Proposed Rule Additional Information

Description ofSubjects/Issues

Comments 2009-00773 Permanent Rule 1000 Department of Public Health and Environment 1001 Air Quality Control Commission 5 CCR 1001-14 AMBIENTAIR QUALITY STANDARDS

1111912009 0900AM Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Sabin Conference Room, Denver, CO 80246 

### ProwsedRuleAttach2009-00773.DOC AddlnfoAttach2009-00773.DOC To consider revisions to the PM1 0 maintenance plan for Telluride

.. This is the second oftwo 10-year plans that are required by the Clean Air Act. The Division is proposing to revise the Ambient Air Quality Standards regulation to modify the mobile source emissions budget. SOS & PUBLISHER: This replaces REDLINE CHANGES ONLY in the Rule 

### Public Name Chris Dann 

### Public Title Public Information Officer 

### Public Telephone 303.092-3281 

### Public Email Chris.Dann@state.co.us 

### Submitted in response to issues raised by COLS/OLLS? N Purpose/Objective of Rule Statutory Authority Adopted Rules

Redline Adopted Date Attorney General Opinion Effective Date Inserted Into CCR Date To adopt revisions to the PM10 maintenance plan for Telluride. This is the second oftwo 10-years plans that are required by the Clean Air Act. Sections 25-7-105(1) and 25-7-109(1) and (2), C.R.S. and Sections 24-4-103 and 25-7-110, C.R.S., as amended


### AdoptedRules02009-00773.DOC Redline2009-00773.DOC 1111912009 1ta3/2009 1213012009 1212312009



# http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/eDocketDetails.do?trackingNum=2009-00773 Page 1 of 1

1/23/2013
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.5560 Cerebrospinal fluid shunt system. ( a ) *Identification.* A cerebrospinal fluid shunt system is a prescription device used to monitor and divert fluid from the brain or other part of the central nervous system to an internal delivery site or an external receptacle for the purpose of preventing spinal cord ischemia or injury during procedures that require reduction in central nervous system pressure. A cerebrospinal fluid shunt system may include catheters, valved catheters, valves, connectors, and pressure monitors intended to facilitate use of the shunt or evaluation of a patient with a shunt.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The device description must include a detailed summary of the device technical parameters, including design configuration, dimensions, engineering drawings, and a list of all components with identification of their materials of construction.
( 2 ) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 3 ) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested: ( i ) Simulated use testing must be conducted to characterize fluid flow and resistance to leakage; and
( ii ) Mechanical integrity testing of all connections must be conducted.
( 4 ) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and device functionality over the specified shelf life.
( 5 ) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility and pyrogenicity of patient-contacting components of the device.
( 6 ) The labeling must include: ( i ) Contraindications with respect to patients who should not receive a lumbar drain;
( ii ) A warning that the device should have 24-hour-a-day availability of trained personnel to supervise monitoring and drainage;
( iii ) Instructions on proper device setup, positioning, and monitoring;
( iv ) Warnings and precautions to inform the user of serious hazards and special care associated with the use of the device;
( v ) A statement that the device is not to be reused, reprocessed, or resterilized when open but unused; and
( vi ) Cleaning instructions for the injection sites.
[86 FR 73975, Dec. 29, 2021]
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.3930 Tympanostomy tube with semipermeable membrane. ( a ) *Identification.* A tympanostomy tube with a semipermeable membrane is a device intended to be implanted for ventilation or drainage of the middle ear and for preventing fluids from entering the middle ear cavity. The device is inserted through the tympanic membrane to permit a free exchange of air between the outer ear and middle ear. The tube portion of the device is made of silicone elastomer or porous polyethylene, and the membrane portion is made of polytetrafluoroethylene.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II. The special control for this device is FDA's “Tympanostomy Tubes, Submission Guidance for a 510(k).”
[51 FR 40389, Nov. 6, 1986, as amended at 65 FR 17145, Mar. 31, 2000]
#### City Bank and Trust Company *v.*Pollock *et al.*

Atkinson, J.

1. An assignment of error upon the admission in evidenge of certain “proxies” over the objection that their execution “had not been proved as required by law, nor were they attested by any witness,” which does not set forth the formal parts of the proxies referred to or the substance of such formal parts, is without merit. If the exception were sufficient, the admission of this evidence over the objection would not be erroneous where there was other evidence to the effect that the proxies were signed by the persons by whom they purported to have been executed.

2. The admission in evidence of certain excerpts from affidavits submitted at the interlocutory hearing, as to matters which elsewhere appeared from the pleadings and other documents which were admitted in evidence without objection, does not require a reversal.

3. The following clause was contained in both the original and supplemental trust deeds: “The trustee may be removed from said trust by an instrument in writing under the hands and seals of the holders of a majority of the amount of the then outstanding bonds secured hereby, and any vacancy in the office of the trustee, whether so created or aris*542ing from resignation, incapacity, or any other canse, may be filled by the appointment of one or more competent persons, or a corporation, as new trustee by an instrument in writing under the hands and seals of a majority in amount of the holders of the then outstanding bonds or obligations secured hereby, and any new trustee or trustees appointed as aforesaid shall be vested with all of the estate, trusts, rights, powers, and duties of the trustee herein named. However, no such removal shall be effective until the trustee shall have been reimbursed for all outlays and expenses incurred in this behalf.” *Held:*

No. 8416.

February 27, 1932.

*(а)*The evidence authorized a finding that the bondholders had complied with the foregoing provisions of the contract as to removal of the original trustee and the appointment of a new trustee.

(б) The evidence also authorized a finding that there were no outlays and expenses incurred by the original trustee in executing the trust to be reimbursed.

(c) The original plaintiff did not except to the judgment.

*(d)*The judgment was-not erroneous.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*543
      *G. N. Davie, J. F. Kemp,*and *L. 8. Gamp,*for plaintiff.

*T. J. Long, M. E. Kilpatrick,*and *Alston, Alston, Foster & Moise,*for defendants.
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, I, Michael Dinkins, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(a) such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and

(b) the information contained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company and its subsidiaries as of and for the periods presented in such Form 10-Q.



| |  |     |  |                                                      |  |  |  |       |  |               
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | --------------
| |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael Dinkins                                  |  |  |  | Date: |  | August 6, 2007
| |  |     |  | Michael Dinkins                                      |  |  |  |       |  |               
| |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |       |  |
# C_2014245EN.01002501.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/25

---

Action brought on 21 May 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM — The Swatch Group Management Services (HAPPY TIME)

(Case T-352/14)

2014/C 245/33

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant): The Smiley Company SPRL (Bruxelles, Belgium) (represented by: I. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)

Applicant):

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Swatch Group Management Services AG (Biel, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 in Case R 1497/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 in Case R 1497/2013-1;

| — | Dismiss the opposition by amendment of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the opposition by amendment of the contested decision;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HAPPY TIME’ for goods and services in Classes 14 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 06  813

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Swatch Group Management Services AG

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration protected with effect in the European Union of the word mark ‘HAPPY HOURS’ for services in Classes 35 and 37

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.4355 Corneal inlay inserter handle. ( a ) *Identification.* The corneal inlay inserter handle is a hand-held device intended to be used as an accessory to a corneal inlay inserter. The device extends the length of the inlay inserter to aid in delivering the inlay implant.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[84 FR 14870, Apr. 12, 2019]
#### Palmour *et al. v.*Mitchell.

No. 8522.

February 18, 1932.

Hill, J.

Under the pleadings and the evidence in the case, there were material issues of fact to be determined by a jury, and the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendant, and in overruling the motion for a new trial. *Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.*

*453
      *J. B. Gray*and *E. D. Kenyon,*for plaintiffs.

*J. B. Jones,*for defendant.
39482.

#### PETTAWAY v. CITY OF ALBANY *et al.*

Eberhakdt, Judge.

1. A suit by a widow tó recover the full value of the life of her husband, alleged to have been fatally injured by negligent acts of the defendant city, is a suit for damages arising from injuries to the person. *Atlantic, V. & W. R. Co. v. McDilda,*125 Ga. 468 (54 SE 140, 114 ASR 240); *Cantrell v. Davis,*176 Ga. 745 (169 SE 38); *Ivester v. Southern Ry. Co.,*61 Ga. App. 364 (6 SE2d 214). See *Lundy v. City Council of Augusta,*51 Ga. App. 655, 659 (4) (181 SE 237).

2. Where it does not appear from the petition itself that the ante litem notice, required by *Code*§ 69-308, was given within the time therein provided, the city’s general demurrer was properly sustained. *Saunders v. City of Fitzgerald,*113 Ga. *740619 (38 SE 978); *Newton v. City of Moultrie,*37 Ga. App. 631 (3) (141 SE 322); *Peek v. City of Albany,*101 Ga. App. 564 (114 SE2d 451); *City of Atlanta v. Barrett,*102 Ga. App. 469, 471 (116 SE2d 654).

Decided April 10, 1962.

*Burt •& Burt, W. PL. Burt,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Gardner, Kelley & Wiggins, Asa D. Kelley, Jr., Frank PL. Lowe, Jr.,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1660 Non-image-intensified fluoroscopic x-ray system. ( a ) *Identification.* A non-image-intensified fluoroscopic x-ray system is a device intended to be used to visualize anatomical structures by using a fluorescent screen to convert a pattern of x-radiation into a visible image. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Analytical Request XXXXXX

To: XXXXX

From: XXXXXXX

XXXXXX

Date: 11/16/10

Subject: Physical Properties of [ ]

XXXXXXX

ANALYTICAL LABORATORY

Analytical Results
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.4205 Cardiopulmonary bypass bubble detector. ( a ) *Identification.* A cardiopulmonary bypass bubble detector is a device used to detect bubbles in the arterial return line of the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 722 V

Filed: April 29, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

GERALD JANSEN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.

Lisa Ann Watts , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On May 22, 2018

, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he developed Guillain

- Barre syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 12, 2016 . Petit ion at 1 . The

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 26, 2019

, re spondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent has reviewed the medical records filed in this case and

has concluded that petition has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table.

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in

accordance with the E

- Government Act of 200 2. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

.Id. at 4 . Respondent further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act

. Id.

In view of respondent ’s position and the evidence of record, the undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master