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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Badger State Ethanol, LLC (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the “Report”),I, John L. Malchine, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 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. |

 

 

March 25, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ John L. Malchine    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | John L. Malchine        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------



      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


I, Steven D. Simpson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended
September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Extended Systems Incorporated.


By:  ___________________________
Name:  Steven D. Simpson
Title:  Chief Executive Officer








I, Karla K. Rosa, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended
September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Extended Systems Incorporated.


By:  ___________________________
Name:  Karla K. Rosa
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Republic Vohonal Bank MY Wry Y
ue
TTL Rate of Interest

This responds to your request for comments concerning the Federal Reserve Bank

of New York’s August 10, 1999 letter which communicated the U.S. Treasury’s

proposal to change the method used to calculate interest charged for the use of

TTL funds. The proposal to switch from use of the Federal Funds Rate minus 25

basis points to a market rate based on a published overnight repurchase

agreement rate will result in decreased use of this program.

Presently the Federal Funds and Repo markets have a number of advantages over
the TT&L note program. Namely the Federal Funds and Repo markets are more
flexible and allow us to participate when and wherever we choose. Whereas in the
TT&L note program institutions must. wait for the U.S. Treasury to determine
availability. In addition, funds borrowed under the TT&L note program are
callable at any point in time and the process to release collateral does not
allow sufficient time for us to utilize the collateral for other purposes. We do
not have these constraints in the Federal Funds and Repo markets but have been
willing to live with the above given the present 25 basis point discount. The
increased rate structure would raise costs to the bank to the point where we can
obtain alternative funding elsewhere at lower rates of interest. As a result
there would be no incentive for Republic to participate.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the above please contact us
at your convenience.

You may reach me at 212/525-6151

sincerely,
Albert Romano
June 19, 1943

No. 48415.

#### Protest 744534-G of Collin & Gissel.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1223 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1223

             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2017

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Repeal 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Public Law 89-224 (commonly know as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment 
Fund Act'') (79 Stat. 897) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2022119EN.01003101.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 January 2022 — Mylan IRE Healthcare v Commission

(Case T-303/16) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Orphan medicinal products - Marketing authorisations for the medicinal products Tobramycin VVB and associated names - Derogation from the market exclusivity of Tobi Podhaler, containing the active substance tobramycin - Article 8(3)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Concept of ‘significant benefit’ - Concept of ‘clinical superiority’ - Article 3(2) and (3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 119/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mylan IRE Healthcare Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Vernimme, M. Campolini and D. Gillet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: UAB VVB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Rivas Alba, V. Horcajuelo Rivera and M. Martens, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 2083 final of 4 April 2016 concerning, in the framework of Article 29 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for ‘Tobramycin VVB and associated names’, medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘tobramycin’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mylan IRE Healthcare Ltd to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by UAB VVB, including those relating to procedure for the replacement of a party. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mylan IRE Healthcare Ltd to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by UAB VVB, including those relating to procedure for the replacement of a party.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

---
Document

Exhibit 10.45


Board of Directors' Compensation


Board of Directors for the 2020-2021 term:
						
	Chairperson of the Board	$450,000
	Audit Committee Chair	300,000 	
	Audit Committee Member	275,000 	
	Compensation Committee Chair	290,000 	
	Compensation Committee Member	265,000 	
	Investment and Capital Committee Chair	290,000 	
	Investment and Capital Committee Member	265,000 	
	New Director without a committee assignment	265,000 	
	Technology Committee Chair1
	290,000 	
	Technology Committee Member1
	265,000 	
	Nominating and Governance Committee Chair2
	20,000 	
	Nominating and Governance Committee Member2
	15,000 	


1Compensation for an assignment solely to the Technology Committee as the chairperson or member is $290,000 and $265,000, respectively. Compensation for a secondary assignment to the Technology Committee as the chairperson or member is $25,000 and $15,000, respectively.
2 Each member of the Nominating and Governance Committee has a primary assignment on one of the other committees and receives additional compensation for service in these positions.
Justification for why both CFR Citation and Instrument are not applicable

This ICR derives its mandate from an Act of Congress (Public Law 107

- 188), not an agency rulemaking, thus there is no applicable CFR citation. Though Congress outlined requirements for the Vulnerability Assessments and Certification of VA’s and Emergency Response Plans covered by this ICR, there is standard instrument associated with these documents. Accordingly, neither can be provided to OMB with this ICR package.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

vs. : CRIMINAL NO. 04-506-2

KEVIN JENKINS :

:

JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL/NOT GUILTY

AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 2006, came the attorney for the Government and the

defendant being present with counsel, and 

[ ] The Court having granted the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to: 

[ ] A jury has been waived, and the Court has found the defendant not guilty as to: 

[X] The jury has returned its verdict, finding the defendant not guilty as to: Count 5

AND IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment in accordance with the above

finding is hereby entered pursuant to Rule 32(k)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

 BY THE COURT:

__________________________

Berle M. Schiller, J.

cc: U.S. Marshal - via fax

Probation Office - via fax

Counsel

 5/11/06 C. Campoli 

 Date By Whom

Cr 1 (4/2006)

Case 2:04-cr-00506-BMS Document 121 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TenFold Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nancy M. Harvey, President, ChiefExecutive Officer, and 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, 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/ NANCY M. HARVEY                                                                   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                       |   |
| **Nancy M. Harvey**                                                                   |   |
| ***President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer*****May 13, 2003** |   |
Exhibit 99.1

                     Certification pursuant to Section 1350
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      --------------------------------------------------------------------


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  DA Consulting Group, Inc. (the
"COMPANY")  on  Form  10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the "REPORT"), I,
Virginia  L. Pierpont, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  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,  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.




                                             /s/ Virginia L. Pierpont
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                                Virginia L. Pierpont
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
                                               Date:  August 14, 2003




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to DA Consulting Group, Inc. and will be retained by DA Consulting
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon its request.


                                       20
<PAGE>
# C_2017078EN.01001101.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 12 December 2016 — American Express Co. v The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

(Case C-643/16)

(2017/C 078/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: American Express Co.

Applicant:

Defendant: The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (1) | Does a payment system, to which the Access Obligation provided for in Article 35(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (1) (‘PSD2’) would otherwise not apply, by virtue of Article 35(2)(b) PSD2, render itself subject to that Obligation (i) by entering into co-brand arrangements with co-brand partners who do not themselves provide payment services on that system in relation to that co-branded product offering and/or (ii) by using an agent to act on its behalf in providing payment services? |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Does a payment system, to which the Access Obligation provided for in Article 35(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (1) (‘PSD2’) would otherwise not apply, by virtue of Article 35(2)(b) PSD2, render itself subject to that Obligation (i) by entering into co-brand arrangements with co-brand partners who do not themselves provide payment services on that system in relation to that co-branded product offering and/or (ii) by using an agent to act on its behalf in providing payment services?

1

| (2) | If the answer to Question (1) is ‘yes’, is Article 35(1) of PSD2 invalid in so far as it provides that systems with such arrangements are to be subject to the Access Obligation, on the grounds of:






  (a) | failure to provide reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFEU; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

If the answer to Question (1) is ‘yes’, is Article 35(1) of PSD2 invalid in so far as it provides that systems with such arrangements are to be subject to the Access Obligation, on the grounds of:

(a)

failure to provide reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFEU;

| (b) | manifest error of assessment; and/or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

manifest error of assessment; and/or

| (c) | breach of the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

breach of the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ 2015, L 337, p. 35).

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SAMUEL STOPHER :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4147

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04147-AB Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 61273.

protest 295350-K (Philadelphia).

#### Davies, Turner & Co. *v.*United States,

*460Opinion by

La whence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of constituent and integral parts of toilet-box assemblies the same in all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C. D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2016343EN.01002101.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Federal Express Europe Inc.

(Case C-273/16)

(2016/C 343/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law and cross-respondent on a point of law: Agenzia delle Entrate

Appellant on a point of law and cross-respondent on a point of law:

Respondent on a point of law and cross-appellant on a point of law: Federal Express Europe Inc.

Respondent on a point of law and cross-appellant on a point of law:

Question referred

Question referred

Can Articles 144 and 86(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (1) (corresponding to Article 14(1) and (2) and Article 11.B(3) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (2)), taken together, be interpreted to mean that the only condition in order for connected services consisting of the ‘inbound’ transport service — from airports to the place of destination within the territory of the Member State, with the ‘free-at-destination’ clause — not to be liable to VAT is that their value is included in the taxable amount, regardless of whether or not the goods in question were in fact subject to customs duties, at the time of their importation; and is it therefore incompatible with those EU-law provisions if the domestic rules laid down in Articles 9(1).2 and 69(1) of Presidential Decree No 33 of 26 October 1972, read together in the versions in force at the time of the material facts, provide that in every case, and therefore also in the case of imports that are not liable to VAT — as is the case here, since it concerns documents and goods of negligible value — there has to be compliance with the additional requirement that those imports must in fact be liable to VAT (and customs duty must in fact be paid) at the time of the importation of such goods, even, if need be, when account is taken of the ancillary nature of the transport services in relation to the main services (namely the importation) and of the rationale of simplification underlying both the main and the ancillary operations?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

2

---
Before the Second Division,

May 4, 1959

No. 63014.

#### Nife, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/22200 (New York).

Opinion

by Ford,

J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hand lights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61976, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 49968.

#### Protest 96555-K of N. Snellenberg & Co. (Philadelphia).

*194, Opinion by

Tilson, J.

During the trial a sample of the merchandise was admitted in evidence. The examiner at the port of entry testified that the merchandise was similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Hochschild, Kohn*(31 C. C. P. A. 98, C. A. D. 255). Upon the established facts and following the cited authority the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed. The protest was sustained to this extent.
# C_2017277EN.01001901.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Immo Chiaradia SPRL (C-444/16), Docteur De Bruyne SPRL (C-445/16) v État belge

(Joined Cases C-444/16 and C-445/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 78/660/EEC - Annual accounts of certain types of companies - Principle that a true and fair view must be given - Principle that valuation must be made on a prudent basis - Issuing company of a share option recognising the grant date price of the option in the course of the accounting year in which the option is exercised or at the end of its period of validity))

(2017/C 277/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Immo Chiaradia SPRL (C-444/16), Docteur De Bruyne SPRL (C-445/16)

Applicants:

Defendant: État belge

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The principles that a true and fair view must be given and that valuation must be made on a prudent basis set out in Articles 2(3) and 31(1)(c) respectively of Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [50(2)(g) TFEU] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003, must be interpreted as not precluding an accounting method according to which a company issuing a share option may recognise as income the grant date price of that option in the course of the accounting year in which that option is exercised or at the end of its period of validity.

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.6.2016.

1

---
No. 50368.

Suit 4494.

#### United *States*v. *Massabni Bros. & Saba.*

C. D. 875 reversed May 24, 1945. C. A. D. 313.