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

PROTALIX BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Protalix BioTherapeutics, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Report’’), I, David Aviezer, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, ‘‘filed’’ with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: July 13, 2007

/s/ David Aviezer                                                            David Aviezer, Ph.D.President and Chief Executive Officer

----
# C_2013114EN.01003301.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Schönberger v Parliament

(Case T-186/11) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Right to petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Petition declared admissible - Decision concluding the petition procedure - Measure not subject to review - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 114/52

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Waldherr and U. Rösslein, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 25 January 2011 which concluded the examination of the petition submitted by the applicant on 2 October 2010 (petition No 1188/2010), which had been declared admissible.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Mr Peter Schönberger to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Peter Schönberger to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# ACTION:

Announcement of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the 16th meeting of the American Health Information Community Consumer Empowerment Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).

# DATES:

May 2, 2007, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Mary C. Switzer building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090. Please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​consumer.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Workgroup will continue its discussion on how to encourage the widespread adoption of a personal health record that is easy-to-use, portable, longitudinal, affordable, and consumer-centered.

                    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to:                     *http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​consumer/​ce_​instruct.html.*

Dated: April 16, 2007.

Judith Sparrow,

Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

[FR Doc. 07-2008 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
§ 176.900 Applicability. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, a mechanically propelled vessel of the United States, which is certificated for or carries more than 12 passengers on international voyages must be in compliance with the applicable requirements of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as Amended (SOLAS), to which the United States Government is currently a party.
( b ) SOLAS does not apply to a vessel solely navigating the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River as far east as a straight line drawn from Cap des Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island and, on the north side of Anticosti Island, the 63rd Meridian.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78087, Dec. 14, 2010]
Filed 10 / 29 / 21 In re A.A. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re A.A. , a Person Coming

Under the Juvenile Court Law. 2d Juv. No. B3 12695 (Super. Ct. No. PJ53569 )
(Los Angele s County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.A. became a ward of the juvenile court in March of 2021

following a gang

- related stabbing . (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) 1

The juvenile court ordered appellant to a suitable placement and

he entered Boys Republic Youth Services in Pomona

. A.A.

struggled at the facility. He frequently challenged other minors

to fight, ignored basic instructions, stole items from the kitchen,

1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.2

and degraded and in timidated the facility’s staff. He appeared

under the influence of marijuana on most days and was observed

smoking a vape pen in the bathroom. When his mother visited

the facility, he discouraged her from participating in family

therapy. A staff member also described him spraying her in the

eyes and mou th with aerosol air freshener.

P robation recommended terminating A.A.’s suitable

placement based on violations of his terms of probation

. (§ 777.)

Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court a dopted

probation’s recommendation and ordered A.A. to a ca mp
community placement program. A.A. appeals this order.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant. Counsel

examined the record and filed an opening brief requesting the

court independently re view this case under People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). (See In re Kevin S. (2003) 113

Cal.App.4th 97, 99 [ Wende procedure applies in juvenile

delinquency appeals].) W e advised appellant o n September 8

, 202 1 that he had 30 days to personally s ubmit any contentions or

issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that

appellant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities

and that no arguable issue exists. ( Wend e
, supra , 25 Cal.3d at

p. 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)

T he juvenile court’s dispositional order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN , J.3 Morton Rochman , Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001007020
<NAME> INTEGRATED SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,842
<SECURITIES>                                       601
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                       312
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,871
<PP&E>                                           6,161
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,541
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,898
<SALES>                                         43,178
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,178
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,961
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,448
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,513
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,513
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40


</TABLE>
#### RICHARD RANDION, PLAINTIFF, v. THE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided December 20, 1928.

Before Justices Minturn, Black and Campbell.

Eor the plaintiff, *Salvatore F. La Corte*and *Louis J. Feit.*

Eor the defendant, *William A. Barkalow.*

Pee Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages for personal injuries. The complaint alleges the defendant was engaged in interstate commerce; that on the 18th day of January, 1921, the plaintiff was employed as assistant station boy at removing and loading mail into and from cars on the mail trains operated by the defendant company, at its eastbound Plainfield station; that the plaintiff slipped upon the truck and fell between the truck and the baggage coach, the cause of the slipping upon the truck platform of the truck was due to the faulty condition of the platform of the truck and the iron band binding the platform boards upon the truck, of which the defendant company had prior notice, but neglected to remedy the same, charging negligence in that respect as the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $3,000. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause and writes down eight reasons for a new trial. The view, which we take after reading the testimony, renders it unnecessary to consider only one of the reasons, *32viz., the verdict was contrary to the clear weight of the evidence. This we think is so. The only issue submitted by the trial court to the jury was a duty to provide “a safe truck,” if you come to the conclusion that this truck was not in a defective condition, that ends the case—the plaintiff has no claim whatever.” This was the sole issue upon the question of the defendant’s negligence. To support the affirmative of that issue, the plaintiff was sworn and a witness, Fred H. Lanning, the night baggage agent at the Plain-field station, he testified, among other things, the plaintiff “slipped and fell off the truck.” This testimony is rather unsatisfactory, both as to accuracy and truthfulness, in some of the details. As against this, the defendant produced four witnesses, Frank 0. Webster, John Urquhart, Joseph Faulkaver and Tobias Nolan.

Our conclusion is the rule to show cause should be made absolute and a *venire de novo*should issue.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Sharlene Cobb 

aka Sharlene Wilson 

aka Sharlene Williams, 

 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:14-cv-14909 

 Paul D. Borman 

vs. United States District Judge 

 

Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 Purusant to the parties’ stipulation filed on March 26, 2015 (Dkt. #7), 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs to 

either party. 

 s/Paul D. Borman 

 PAUL D. BORMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 30, 2015 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or 

party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on March 30, 2015. 

 s/Deborah Tofil 

 Deborah Tofil 

 Case Manager (313) 234-5122 

Case 2:14-cv-14909-PDB-DRG ECF No. 8 filed 03/30/15 PageID.18 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6699

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ANTHONY NOBLE, a/k/a Jamaican Mike,

a/k/a Michael Anthony Thomas,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CR-90-99, CA-97-1381-JFM)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 3, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Noble, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia,

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Noble seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and find that Noble’s

motion was not timely filed in the district court. See Brown v.

Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030, at *6 (4th Cir. July 14,

1998) (determining the limitation period with regard to post-AEDPA

28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) petitions in cases

where the conviction became final prior to the statute’s enactment). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material

before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 24, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00771

- CV

Gail GILLETTE

, Appellant

v.

Stephen GRAVES

, Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI03140

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

T he Appellant ’ s Third Motion fo r Extension o f Time to File Brief is GRANTED

.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN W ITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of May, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41397 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERARDO CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-210-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gerardo Cortez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2016232EN.01002002.xml

| 27.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/20

---

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki v Commission

(Case T-635/11) (1)

1

((State aid - Annulment of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 232/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE (Maroussi Attikis, Greece) (represented by: N. Niejahr, lawyer, F. Carlin, Barrister, Q. Azau, F. Spyropoulos, I. Dryllerakis, K. Spyropoulos, A. Komninos, K. Struckmann, lawyers, and M. Powell, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal, D. Triantafyllou and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by Greece in favour of certain Greek casinos (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Regency Entertainment Psychagogiki kai Touristiki AE.

| 3. | Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

1

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending December 10, 2005

|Filer                       | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                                
|--------------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|NEW RICHMOND BANCORPORATION | CIC           | Interagency Notice of Change in Bank Control filed by Mr. Jay L. Dunlap, Lincoln, NB acting as attorney and agent on behalf of Mark Dunlap to vote 58.25 shares or 55.48% of the outstanding voting shares of New Richmond Bancorporation, New Richmond, OH. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                  | Not available
|Federal Register:           | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Selective Service System

# AGENCY:

Selective Service System.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of members of the Selective Service System (SSS) Performance Review Board (PRB).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Verona C. Ballard, Human Resources Division, Selective Service System, 1515 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22207, 703-605-4040.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

5 CFR 430.310 requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more Senior Executive Service (SES) performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and considers recommendations to the appointing authority regarding the performance of the senior executive. Because the SSS is a small independent Federal agency, the members of the SSS's PRB are being drawn from other Federal agencies.

The following executives have been appointed to the SSS Performance Review Board:

Lawrence Roffee, Executive Director, US Access Board;

Gary Thatcher, Associate Director, International Broadcast Bureau;

Debra Carr, Associate Deputy Staff Director, US Commission on Civil Rights.

Dated: January 16, 2007.

William A. Chatfield,

Director.

[FR Doc. 07-208 Filed 1-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8015-01-M