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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.§1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund IX, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:  March 22, 2011





/s/ Dean L. CashDean L. CashPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blue Ridge Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patrick A. Kelleher, Chief Executive Officer 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/ Patrick A. Kelleher
-----------------------
Patrick A. Kelleher
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2004
** **

**EXHIBIT 8.1**

CRUCELL FORM 20-F

**LIST OFSUBSIDIARIES OF CRUCELL N.V. as per June 29, 2006**
| **Name**                        | ** ** | **Residence**       | ** ** | **Ownership %** |
|---------------------------------|------------|---------------------|------------|-----------------|
|                            |       |                |       |            |
| Crucell Holland B.V.            |       | Leiden, NL          |       | 100             |
| U-BySis B.V.                    |       | Leiden, NL          |       | 100             |
| Chromagenics B.V.               |       | Amsterdam, NL       |       | 100             |
|                            |       |                |       |            |
| Berna Biotech AG                |       | Bern, CH            |       | 100             |
| Istituto Sieroterapico Berna    |       | Milano, IT          |       | 100             |
| Etna Biotech Spa                |       | Catania, IT         |       | 100             |
|                            |       |                |       |            |
| EtnaVax Holding AG              |       | Bern, CH            |       | 13              |
| EtnaVax Spa                     |       | Catania, IT         |       | 100             |
|                            |       |                |       |            |
| Berna Biotech Espana S.A.       |       | Madrid, ES          |       | 100             |
|                            |       |                |       |            |
| Rhein Biotech N.V.              |       | Maastricht, NL      |       | 92.7            |
| Rhein Vaccines B.V.             |       | Maastricht, NL      |       | 100             |
| Rhein Biotech GmbH              |       | Düsseldorf, DE |       | 100             |
| Rhein Minapharm                 |       | Cairo, EG           |       | 3               |
| Vida Rhein, S.A.                |       | Lisboa, PT          |       | 50              |
| Pevion Biotech AG               |       | Bern, CH            |       | 50              |
|                            |       |                |       |            |
| Green Cross Vaccine Corporation |       | Yongin, KR          |       | 100             |

 

----
Exhibit
3.1.1
  ROSS
MILLER
 Secretary
of State
 204
Carson Street, Ste. 1
 Carson
City, Nevada 89701-4299
 (775)684-5708
 Website:
secretaryofstate.biz
  Certificate
      of Amendment
                      (PURSUANT
      TO NRS 78.385 AND 78.390)
                    
                    Filed
      in the office of
                      Ross
      Miller
                      Ross
      Miller
                      Secretary
      of State
                      State
      of Nevada
                    Document
      Number
                      20070045843-93
                      Filing
      Date and Time
                      01/23/2007  11:28
      AM
                      Entity
      Number
                      C23688-2000
  USE BLACK INKONLY
      - DO NOT HIGHLIGHT
                        
                        ABOVE
      SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE
ONLY
 
 Certificate of Amendment to
Articlesof
Incorporation
 For Nevada Profit
Corporations
 (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 •After Issuance of Stock)
 1.
Name of corporation:
 XFONE,
INC.
 2.
The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if
available):
 On
December 28, 2006, the shareholders of the corporation approved an amendment to
the corporation's Articles of Incorporation (the "Articles of Incorporation")
whereby the Articles of Incorporation have been amended to provide for an
authorized capital of 75,000,000 shares of Common Stock $0.001 par value. In
addition, the amendment eliminated the 50,000,000 authorized shares of Preferred
Stock.
 3.The
vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them
to exercise at
least a majority of the voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting
power as may be required
in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the
provisions of the* articles
of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is: 7,116,918 /11,253,817
(63.2%)
 4. Effective
date of filing (optional):
 January
18,2007
 (must
not be latter than 90 days after the certificate is filed)
 5.
Officer Signature (Required) /s/Alon Reisser,
Secretary
  *If
anyproposed
amendmentwouldalter
or change any preference or anyrelativeorother
right givento
anyclass
or seriesofoutstandingshares,
then the amendment must be approved by the vote, in addition to the
affirmative vote otherwise required. of the holders of shares representing a
majority of the voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment
regardless of limitation, or restrictions on the voting power
thereof.
 IMPORTANT:
Failure to include any of the above information and submit the proper fees may
cause this filing to be rejected
 This
form must be accompanied by appropriate fees
 Nevada
Secretary of State AM 78.365 Amend 2007
 Revised
on 01.01.07
No. 52173.

protests 737626-G, etc. (Baltimore and Boston).

#### Hahn Department Stores Purch. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

O!=:!=ICEOEHEt\RINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FAA Case No. 2010NM010105 

In the Matters of: FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Declaration 

(Confidential Order) 

I have read the administrative law judge's Order of October 18,2012, sealing the exhibits and 

transcript in the above proceeding. Per paragraph 4 of that Order, I agree to be bound and 

abide by its tenns. 

Dana Stephensou 

Legal Assistant 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

FAA Northwest Mountain Region 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

( 425) 227-2164 

RECEIVED 

FEB 2 0 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Declaration has been served via facsimile and Certified 

Mail- Return Receipt Requested this date, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodv.m 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2139 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX: (202) 493-5142 

Dane B. Jaques, Counsel for Respondent 

DombroffGilmore Jaques & French, P.C. 

1676lntemational Dr., Penthouse 

McLean, VA 221 02 

FAX (703) 336-3750 

DATED this 12'h day of February, 2013. 

Declaration 

Avlation Technical Services, Inc, 

~Ad!/1li&_a~ anaStephenson f 

Office ofRegional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, WA 98057 

(425) 227-2164 

KAREN DAVIS HUBER, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2167; 

FAX: (425) 227-1007 

DMS Nos. FAA-2011 -0682, FAA Case No. 2010NM0101 05 

Page 2 of2
BOMBARDIER 

Ref: AW-BCC/16/019 

14 January, 2016 

Docket Management Facility 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 

20590 

AEROSPACE 

Bombardier Inc. 

200 chemin de Ia Cote-Vertu West 

Dorval, Quebec, Canada H4S 2A3 

www.bombardier.com 

TEL 514-420-4000 

Subject: BD-700-2B12 Global7000 and BD-700-2B13 Global8000- Withdrawal of Petition 

for Grant of Exemption from Requirements of 14 CFR 25.813(e) 

To Whom It May Concern: 

In light of the recent publication of Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2015-19 by the 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Bombardier Inc now formally requests that its 

petition for exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR 25.813(e) to allow for the installation 

of doors between passenger seats and emergency exits be withdrawn at your earliest 

convenience (reference document number FM-2015-3836). 

While Bombardier is confident that the existing design provides for an overall level of safety that 

is consistent with the intent of the airworthiness standards, design changes may be required in 

order to comply with EASA requirements for the installation of interior doors on commercially 

operated airplanes. For this reason, we believe it entirely appropriate to withdraw our petition 

for exemption at this time. Once we are confident that our design will meet the requirements 

of the amended CS-25, we will submit a new petition for grant of exemption that accounts for 

the necessary design changes, if any. 

If there are any questions or comments concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact 

Mike Gillis (Global Completion Center). 

Sean J nson 

Director of Completions, Global 7000 I 8000 

Bombardier Aerospace
EXHIBIT 10.2

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION****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 on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 of Given Imaging Ltd. (the “Company”) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Gavriel Meron, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, that:

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

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

 

|   |   |                                                                                                                    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   | By:                                                                                                                | /s/  GAVRIEL MERON |
|   |   |                                                                                                                    |  |
|   |   |   Name: Gavriel Meron  Title: President and Chief Executive Officer  Date: April 10, 2003 |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Given Imaging Ltd. and will be retained by Given Imaging Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
The new CARS Authority Module goes live on December 14. Join Fiscal Service Budget 

Appropriation and Analysis experts in a Webinar and Demo featuring the new, more

modern look and feel, and the improved features of the Authority Module (Non-Expenditure 

Transfers, and Appropriation Warrants). If you are a regular user of CARS, you won’t want 

to miss the opportunity to see the changes and ask your questions before the new module 

goes live.

DATE:

Thursday 

December 10, 2020

TIME:

2-3:30 PM ET

Exciting CARS Updates Coming December

• New Look: A new modern look in the Authority module (Non-expenditure transfers, 

Borrowings, Appropriation Warrants and Year-end Closing) with user friendly functions 

and updates: easier search abilities, instant error messages, and so much more. 

• SHaC: Short Handed Component (SHaC) is a new feature that allows the user to 

search for a Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) by using, at minimum, the AID and Main 

parts of the TAS. 

• PDF: Create a PDF document for each individual transaction with one easy click.

• Proactive: A new proactive interface is available to enable a user to identify mistakes 

prior to creating a transaction.

• Push TAS Technology: Newly designed interface displays TAS

Don’t miss this valuable opportunity to see the new CARS Authority module and ask questions.

 

 

Seats are limited! Register today!

Please send webinar - related questions to FA Customer Engagement.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Introducing the New CARS Authority Module -- Webinar and Demo
 U.S. Department of the Treasury | Bureau of the Fiscal Service
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on September 11, 2012

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ERIC DEMOND McCATHERN

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2009-C-2600 Cheryl Blackburn, Judge

No. M2011-01612-CCA-R3-CD - Filed November 16, 2012

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., concurring.

I concur in the result in this case. My only departure from the majority opinion

stems from the majority’s use of abuse-of-discretion review of the sentence alignment issue.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-401(d) provides:

When reviewing sentencing issues raised pursuant to subsection

(a), including the granting or denial of probation and the length

of sentence, the appellate court shall conduct a de novo review

on the record of the issues. The review shall be conducted with

a presumption that the determinations made by the court from

which the appeal is taken are correct.

T. C.A. § 40-35-401(d) (emphasis added). This subsection was not expressly obliterated by

State v. Bise, — S.W.3d —, 2012 WL 4380564 (Tenn. 2012). So, this statutory imperative

for de novo appellate review seems to survive and prevail when the Sixth Amendment

constraints do not apply. Those constraints do not apply to sentence alignment issues.

Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 172 (2009); State v. Allen, 259 S.W.3d 671, 688 (Tenn. 2008).

Thus, respectfully, until our supreme court tells us otherwise, I would apply the statutory

standard in reviewing the defendant’s complaint about consecutive sentencing.

An opportunity arises here to point out that Code section 40-35-115 which

governs consecutive sentencing in general says that the “court may order sentences to run
consecutively if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence” that any of the

enumerated circumstances apply. See T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b) (emphasis added). The use of

the word “may” typically suggests a measure of discretion, and one would typically assign

an abuse-of-discretion standard to the appellate review of a lower court’s discretionary act.

The word “may” appeared, however, in subsection -115(b) prior to the so-called Blakely

statutory sentencing revisions in 2005; yet, review of consecutive sentencing has generally

been undertaken pursuant to the de novo provision of section 40-35-401(d).

That said, I do not see that a different standard of review changes the result in

the present case.

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

-2-
No. 65388.

#### Louis Marx & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/8483, 60/5692, and 59/16029 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal figures or images of animate objects, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 56272.

protest 94655-K (New York).

#### The Attorney General as Successor to the Alien Property Custodian *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 66213.

#### Chadwick Miller Importers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/16357 and 60/19213 (Boston).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with the stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vacuum brushes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65747, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Record of Discussion Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, 

### RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

### Boeing SB review August 6-8 ,2013 Concur. 

### A4A Robert Ireland January 13 ,2 014 No response.

Other/Additional Information:

9Signature Section Signature indicates concurrence with this action . Originating Office**TrackiLJ~:**

# ~df 

# J,n. IJ,/l't ASE 

## fiLu.... 

# ;11{ Date
COS Focal (optional) Date 

# c::=;-=2 \ '=- '---- Branch Manager 

# J Date 

# -{(Jl AEG Representative (excep t for appliance. \) Date
MIDO/ , 0/MIO Representative* D'te *Signature required [fa QC problem is involved. EIR NUMBER (MIDO/CMO/MIO use only) ' J ' ACO/Staff Office MaDij:::---- Date ' 

### I

# ~iL 

# fZ .**t~4** {)<:. 

# s
10
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 08, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 08, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0336. CHARLES E. GRAPER v. GEORGIA BOARD OF DENTISTRY.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2018CV312838
Before the Second Division,

February 9, 1949

No. 52873.

#### W. T. Grant Co. *v.*United States,

protests 921170-G (B), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
#### JOHNSON v. STATE MUT. LIFE ASSUR. CO. OF WORCESTER, MASS.

No. 7222.

United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.

Oct. 26, 1948.

*557Elmer H. Groefsema, Milton A. Behrendt, and Margaret Groefsema, all of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

Fischer, Brown, Sprague, Franklin & Ford, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant.

LEDERLE, Chief Judge.

This diversity of citizenship case involves a claim by plaintiff-insured against defendant-insurer for $7,200.00 in accrued disability benefits under three life and disability policies issued by defendant to plaintiff, to which was added a count for declaratory judgment. These policies provided for monetary benefits in event that prior to reaching the age of 60 the insured became wholly, continuously and permanently disabled so as to be unable to perform any work, mental or manual, or to engage in any occupation or business for compensation, remuneration or profit. Plaintiff became 60 on December 1, 1946, and claimed that he had become so disabled prior thereto. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict of no cause of action, on which decision was reserved. Defendant elected to stand on the record as made. There appearing to be only one issue, the case was submitted to the jury for a special verdict under Rule 49. The special question was:

> “Has plaintiff, William Ball Johnson, proved by a preponderance of the evidence that prior to December 1, 1946, he was wholly, continuously and permanently unable to perform any work, mental or manual, or to engage in any occupation or business for compensation, remuneration or profit?”

To this the jury returned a negative answer.

It thus appearing that plaintiff did not become wholly, continuously and permanently disabled within the terms of said policies prior to reaching the age of 60, he is entitled to no recovery against defendant.

Accordingly, it is Ordered and Adjudged that plaintiff recover nothing on his claim for damages contained in Count I of his complaint, as amended.

It is Further Ordered and Adjudged that plaintiff is entitled to no relief by way of declaratory judgment, as prayed in Count II of his complaint, as amended, relating to the sole issue as hereinabove adjudicated, and as to the other prayers of Count II, relating to the validity and vitality of the policies, there was no controversy requiring any determination. Accordingly, Count II of the complaint, as amended, is hereby dismissed.
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








In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Shoshone Silver/Gold Mining Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A-1 for the year ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, John Ryan, Chief Financial Officer 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:





(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 30th day of August, 2013.








JOHN RYANJohn RyanChief Financial Officer
Before the Second Division,

November 19, 1958

No. 62455.

#### Penson *& Co. v.*United States,

protest 293652-K (New York).

Opinion by

Laweence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of flat bars similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 58580, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.