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

**Certification of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc.  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  regarding Annual Report on Form 10-KSB  for the year ended June 30, 2014**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title  18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Nevada Classic  Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), doeshereby certify that, based upon his knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended    June 30, 2014 (the "Form 10-KSB") fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  the Company.

> 
 

| Dated: September 29, 2014 | By: /s/ Brad Brimhall   |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      |                         |
|                      | Brad Brimhall           |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer |

>
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Alex Ko, certify that:


|   |                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-K/A of Hope Bancorp, Inc.




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;










|                  |            
|----------------- | -----------
|Date: May 4, 2018 | /s/ Alex Ko

_______________________________


Alex Ko


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TOLEDO MACK SALES & :

SERVICE, INC., :

:

Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 2:02-CV-04373-RLB

:

v. :

: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MACK TRUCKS, INC., :

:

Defendant. :

_____________________________________________________________________________

MACK TRUCKS, INC., :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

TOLEDO MACK SALES & :

SERVICE, INC., and : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

:

PAI INDUSTRIES, INC., :

950 Northbrook Parkway, Suwanee, GA, :

:

Defendants. :

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND IMPOUNDING OF INFRINGING 

GOODS

Mack Trucks, Inc. ("Mack") moves this Court for an Order granting a Preliminary 

Injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and for an Order impounding goods 

infringing Mack's copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503, after a hearing held on the merits, and 

in support hereof, relies upon and incorporates the reasons set forth in its Answer and 

Counterclaims and accompanying Memorandum of Law, as if set out herein in full.

Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 6 Filed 08/22/2002 Page 1 of 2
Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

Jon A. Baughman (14043)

Jeremy Heep (75607)

Barak A. Bassman (85626)

PEPPER HAMILTON LLP

3000 Two Logan Square

18th and Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799

215.981.4000

Attorneys for Defendant Mack Trucks, Inc.

Dated: ____________

Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 6 Filed 08/22/2002 Page 2 of 2
# C_2018373EN.01001101.xml

| 15.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2018 — Villeneuve v Commission

(Case T-671/16) (1)

((Civil Service - Recruitment - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/303/15 (AD 7) - Verification by EPSO of the conditions for admission to the competition - Professional experience of a period shorter than the minimum period required - Nature of the check of the condition for admission relating to professional experience - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment by the selection board of the competition - Equal treatment))

(2018/C 373/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vincent Villeneuve (Montpellier, France) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of 5 November 2015 of the selection board rejecting the applicant’s application for open competition, based on qualifications and tests, EPSO/AD/303/15 — Development cooperation and management of aid to non-EU countries (AD 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Vincent Villeneuve to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Vincent Villeneuve to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 419, 14.11.2016.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1304 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1304

 To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude 
 customary prompt pay discounts from manufacturers to wholesalers from 
 the average sales price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2017

   Mr. Roberts (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Casey) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude 
 customary prompt pay discounts from manufacturers to wholesalers from 
 the average sales price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUDING CUSTOMARY PROMPT PAY DISCOUNTS FROM MANUFACTURERS 
              TO WHOLESALERS FROM THE AVERAGE SALES PRICE FOR MEDICARE 
              PAYMENTS FOR DRUGS AND BIOLOGICALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1847A(c)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-3a(c)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(other than 
        customary prompt pay discounts extended to wholesalers)'' after 
        ``prompt pay discounts''; and
            (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``(other than 
        customary prompt pay discounts extended to wholesalers)'' after 
        ``other price concessions''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to the calculation of the average sales price for calendar 
quarters beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

NOBLE : 02-3895

JACKSON, et al. : 02-3911

MENNEALY : 02-3957

RUFFALO,et al. : 02-4112

LANGSTON : 02-4157

CONSTANCE, et al. : 02-4196

RUSS, et al. : 02-4255

RAZO : 02-4269

DOLAN, et al. : 02-4306

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

Case 2:02-cv-04269-JD Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Jan E. Dubois, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04269-JD Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1300 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1300

 To prohibit the indefinite detention of persons by the United States, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2017

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the indefinite detention of persons by the United States, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Sixth Amendment Preservation Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF PERSONS BY THE 
              UNITED STATES.

    (a) Limitation on Detention.--Section 4001 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
    ``(a) No person shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the 
United States except consistent with the Constitution.'';
            (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
            (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
    ``(b)(1) A general authorization to use military force, a 
declaration of war, or any similar authority, on its own, shall not be 
construed to authorize the imprisonment or detention without charge or 
trial of a person apprehended in the United States.
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military 
force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, 
on, or after the date of the enactment of the Sixth Amendment 
Preservation Act.
    ``(3) This section shall not be construed to authorize the 
imprisonment or detention of any person who is apprehended in the 
United States.''.
    (b) Repeal of Authority of the Armed Forces of the United States To 
Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of 
Military Force.--Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) is 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017151EN.01001201.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger registrierte Genossenschaft mbH (AKM) v Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH

(Case C-138/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Right of communication of works to the public - Article 3(1) - Exceptions and limitations - Article 5(3)(o) - Broadcast of television programmes through a local cable network - National law laying down exceptions for installations allowing access to a maximum of 500 subscribers and for the retransmission of broadcasts of the public broadcaster in national territory))

(2017/C 151/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger registrierte Genossenschaft mbH (AKM)

Applicant:

Defendant: Zürs.net Betriebs GmbH

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and Article 11bis of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, in the version resulting from the Paris Act of 24 July 1971, as amended on 28 September 1979, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the simultaneous, full and unaltered transmission of programmes broadcast by the national broadcasting corporation, by means of cables on national territory, is not subject, under the exclusive right of communication to the public, to the requirement that authorisation be obtained from the author, provided that it is merely a technical means of communication and was taken into account by the author of the work when the latter authorised the original communication, this being a matter for the national court to ascertain.

Article 5 of Directive 2001/29, in particular paragraph 3(o) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a broadcast made by means of a communal antenna installation, when the number of subscribers connected to the antenna is no more than 500, is not subject, under the exclusive right of communication to the public, to the requirement that authorisation be obtained from the author, and as meaning that that legislation must, therefore, be applied consistently with Article 3(1) of that directive, this being a matter for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

1

---
# C_2016428EN.01000501.xml

| 21.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2016 — Roland Becker v Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd.

(Case C-447/16)

(2016/C 428/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Roland Becker

Applicant:

Defendant: Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Where passengers are transported on two flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airports, is the place of departure of the first leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, (1) even when the claim advanced in the application for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2) is based on a disruption to the second leg of the journey and the action is brought against the party to the contract of carriage, which, although it was the operating air carrier for the second flight, was not the operating air carrier for the first flight?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

2

---
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 77 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 11 of 11
# C_2017249EN.01001601.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/16

---

Appeal brought on 30 December 2016 by Capella EOOD against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 12 May 2016 in Case T-750/14, Ivo-Kermartin GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-687/16 P)

(2017/C 249/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Capella EOOD (represented by: C. Pfitzer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 7 June 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
#### Franklin RAY, Appellant, v. MacMILLAN BLOEDEL CONTAINERS, INC., Appellee.

No. 84-1415.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 1984.

Decided July 16, 1984.

Michael S. Moore, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.

W. Edward Tarvin, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant.

Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Franklin Ray, a first line supervisor at MacMillan Bloedel, Inc. (MacMillan) was terminated on November 30, 1981. He commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging that he had been terminated because of his age, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 621*et seq.*The case was tried to the court. It found that Ray had failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and that even if such a case had been established, MacMillan had articulated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Ray’s termination and that Ray had *966failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellee’s reason was pretextual. Ray then appealed to this Court. We affirm.

Ray proved that he was in the protected age group, that he was qualified for the job that he held, and that he was terminated. He failed to prove that the job was held open until it was filled by a younger person. He also failed to prove a company practice of terminating protected supervisory employees rather than younger supervisory employees of equal or lesser abilities. He thus failed to establish a prima facie case. *Dace v. ACF Industries, Inc.,*722 F.2d 374, 377-378 & n. 7 (8th Cir.1983); *Cova v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of St. Louis,*574 F.2d 958, 959-960 (8th Cir.1978).

The trial court found that Ray had been terminated as a part of “a legitimate reduction in force due to economic conditions” and that “his performance vis-a-vis other supervisors caused him to be terminated rather than the remaining supervisors regardless of their ages.” This finding was not clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.
# C_2017121EN.01003302.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/33

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament

(Case T-626/16 R)

((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid in the context of the reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))

(2017/C 121/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016 concerning the recovery from the applicant of EUR 56 554 and of debit note No 2016-888 issued pursuant to that decision

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
No. 57923.

protests 119567-K and 119584-K (New York).

#### Capitol Wine & Spirit Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
SAMPLE ONLY

AGENCY LETTERHEAD

Date:    April 4, 2005

To:    Department of the Treasury

    Financial Management Service

    Kansas City Financial Center

    4241 NE 34th Street

    Kansas City, MO  64117

From:    John D. Doe

    Director

Subject:    Approving Official Self-delegation.

In accordance with the authority vested in me as Director, Office of Personnel Management, Washington, DC, I hereby self-designate myself as Approving Official.  As head of agency, I reserve the right to relegate this authority.  

The following Agency Location Code is applicable:  2018 1001.

If you should have any questions, please contact Jane D. Doe, at (816) 414-2340.

----- / S / -----

John D. Doe

Director