alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 15.1**

October 31, 2007 

The board of Directors and Stockholders of 

Tercica, Inc. 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-126307)pertaining to the 2004 Stock Plan and the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Tercica, Inc., Form S-8 (No. 333-113718) pertaining to the 2002 Stock Plan, the 2002 Executive Stock Plan, the 2004 Stock Plan, and the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Planof Tercica, Inc., Form S-3 (No. 333-129574) for the registration of 6,296,912 shares of its common stock, and Form S-3 (No. 333-128224) for the registration of up to $75,000,000 in shares of its common and preferred stock, debt securities, warrantsand units, of our report dated October 31, 2007 relating to the unaudited condensed interim financial statements of Tercica, Inc. that is included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007. 

Very Truly Yours, 

/s/ Ernst &Young LLP
#### Chapman *v.*McPherson.

Atkinson, Justice.

1. Under the facts contained in the record, this is an equity case, within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

2. So far as it applies, the former decision in this case *(Chapman*v. *McPherson,*177 *Ga.*471, 170 S. E. 481) is controlling as the law of the case. Under that decision, the rights of Chapman are *in equity*subject to the lien of a prior security to the estate of Isaac G. Haas, and “the rightful holder thereof” should be given priority.

3. The ease being one in equity, it is governed by equitable principles, whether or not the relief sought by Chapman is legal or equitable. *Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co.*v. *Hughes,*105 *Ga.*1 (3) (30 S. E. 972, 70 Am. St. R. 17); *Garbutt*v. *Mayo,*128 *Ga.*269 (4) (57 S. E. 495, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 58); *Montgomery*v. *Atlanta,*162 *Ga.*534-550 (134 S. E. 152, 47 A. L. R. 233); *Snell*v. *Spalding Foundry Co.,*180 *Ga.*582 (180 S. E. 218).

4. Whether or not the purported transfer of the security deed by the *614executors of tire Haas estate was effectual either in law or equity, it appears that they also .transferred the note secured by the deed, and as a result of such transfer the transferee acquired ah equitable title to the security. Code, § 14-1802: *Simpson*v. *Ennis,*114 *Ga.*202 (39 S. E. 853)*; Shumate*v. *McLendon,*120 *Ga.*396 (10) (48 S. E. 10); *Clark*v. *Howard, 122 Ga. 273*(50 S. E. 108).

No. 11740.

July 10, 1937.

Rehearing denied July 22, 1937.

5. The foreign will under which the executors were acting, though not attested according to the laws of Georgia, appeal's to have been executed and probated according to the laws of the State in which the testator resided, and a copy of the will and the probate thereof, together with the order admitting the same to record according to the laws of that State, having been duly certified and introduced in evidence, sufficiently showed authority of the executors to receive payment of the note from a junior lienholder and thereupon to transfer the note to such holder, the note being personalty. Code, § 113-613; *Knight*v. *Wheedon,*104 *Ga.*309 (30 S. E. 794).

6. When the transferee from the executors subsequently transferred the note to N. C. McPherson Sr., the latter became in equity entitled to the security to the same extent as did the original transferee Under the principle ruled in note 4 above.

7. Under the foregoing rulings. as applied to the competent evidence, the judge, trying the ease without a jury, was authorized to find in favor of McPherson, establishing- a first Zien upon the property, and denying priority to Chapman. The special assignments or error, so far as they are sufficient to raise any question for decision, do not show canse for a reversal.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices conow except Russell, G. J., who dissents.*

*616
      *George Starr Peclc,*for plaintiff in error.

*Morgan Belser*and *Frank A.*Doughman, contra.
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|           |   |                     |   |
|----------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
| April 29, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Mark S. Robinow |   |
|           |   | Mark S. Robinow          |   |
|           |   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|           |   |                     |   |
The following documents are available for the Stillwater National Wildlife   Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

- Stillwater     NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Readers Guide  (PDF File     145 kb)  
- Stillwater     NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Summary  (PDF File 145 kb)  
- Stillwater     NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Chapter 1  (PDF File 145     kb)  
- Stillwater     NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Chapter 2  (PDF File 145     kb)  
- Stillwater     NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Chapter 3  (PDF File 145     kb)  
- Stillwater     NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Chapter 4  (PDF File 145     kb)  
- Stillwater     NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Chapter 5  (PDF File 145     kb)  
- Stillwater     NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Chapter 6  (PDF File 145     kb)  
- Stillwater     NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Glossary  (PDF File 145 kb)  
- Stillwater NWR Complex Comprehensive     Conservation Plan - Planning Update #7  (PDF File 145 kb) 
- Stillwater NWR Complex Comprehensive     Conservation Plan - Planning Update #6  (PDF File 145 kb) 
- Stillwater NWR Complex Draft Environmental     Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision     (Summary)  (PDF File 3,806 kb)
SEC Reference 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Eco Science Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Don Lee Taylor, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:






(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and






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




/s/Don Lee TaylorDon Lee TaylorPrincipal Financial OfficerDate: June 20, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2201

STARSHA SEWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN HOWARD, SR.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (8:12-cv-02736-JFM)

Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s order 

remanding for lack of jurisdiction and improper removal. A 

district court’s remand order is generally not reviewable on 

appeal or otherwise. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). While an 

exception applies for civil rights cases removed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1443 (2006), it requires the removal petitioner to 

allege: (1) the denial of a right arising under federal law 

providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial 

equality, and (2) that she is denied or cannot enforce the 

specific federal rights in the state courts. Johnson v. Miss., 

421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975). Because Sewell relies on 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2006), a provision of general applicability, she cannot 

satisfy the first prong of Johnson. See Ga. v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 

780, 792 (1966). We therefore lack authority to review the 

district court’s remand order. We therefore deny Sewell’s 

motion for default judgment and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

Registrant (Commission File Number 333-110029):

Broder Bros., Co.

Six Neshaminy Interplex, 6thFloor

Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053

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 Broder Bros., Co. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Myers, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broder Bros., Co.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 13, 2008



BRODER BROS., CO.By:

/s/ THOMAS MYERSThomas MyersChief Executive Officer
|    |                                                                                                                |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CIM Real Estate Finance Trust, 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:  | April 24, 2020 | /s/ NATHAN D. DEBACKER |
|   |   | Name: | Nathan D. DeBacker |
|   |   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                                (Principal Financial Officer) |
# C_2007189EN.01000101.xml

| 14.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 August 2007

(2007/C 189/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3651 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 161,47 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4427 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67775 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3143 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6394 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 89,5 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9845 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5842 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,046 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 252,03 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7013 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7755 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,1984 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,416 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7595 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6183 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4372 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6791 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8461 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0752 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 269,13 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7871 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3495 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3058 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 753,45 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7437 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,249 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,809 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,91 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3651

JPY

Japanese yen

161,47

DKK

Danish krone

7,4427

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67775

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3143

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6394

ISK

Iceland króna

89,5

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9845

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5842

CZK

Czech koruna

28,046

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

252,03

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7013

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7755

RON

Romanian leu

3,1984

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,416

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7595

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6183

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4372

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6791

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8461

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0752

KRW

South Korean won

1 269,13

ZAR

South African rand

9,7871

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3495

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3058

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 753,45

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7437

PHP

Philippine peso

62,249

RUB

Russian rouble

34,809

THB

Thai baht

42,91

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A.F. aka A.N.F. v. Department of Family and
Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00722

- CV

Trial court case number: 2018

- 05250J

Tri al court: 313th District Court of Harris County

This case is a priority, accel erated appeal of a decree terminating the appellant ’ s p arental rights to his child, A.F. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2(a), reprinted in T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE , tit. 2,
subtit. F

— Appendix ( appeal from suit terminating the parent

- child relationship filed by

gove rnmental agency must be disposed by court of appeals within 180 days of the fili ng of notice of appeal ). The notice of appeal was prematurely filed in this case on October 15, 2020, before
the t rial court signed the final judgment on December 4, 2020. U nd er Rule 6.2 (a), th e deadline
for this Court ’ s disposition of this appeal is June 2, 2021.

Appellant is indigent, and he i s represented by appointed counsel, Angela Ellis. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE § 107.013(a)(1) (statutory right of indigent parent to appointed counsel in suit filed by govern mental entity seeking termination of the parent

- child relationship); id. § 107.016(2) (in digent parent ’ s right to counsel continues through exhaustion of appea ls).

We have granted appellant three extensio ns of time to file a brief, yet his counsel has not
filed a brief in this court. In the order granting the third extension of ti me to file a brief, we
acknow ledged Ms. Ellis ’ s r epresentation that she had b een ill with COVID

- 19 , and we ordered
Ms. Elli s to file a brief or inform this C ourt that she is unable to continue this representation by March 8, 202 1. Ms. Ellis did not file a brief or inform this court that she is unable to continue representing the f

ather in this appeal.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal , an d we order the tria l cour t to take the following
actions:

(1) The trial court will h old a show

- cause hearing on the record wi thin 10

day s of the date of this order to determine whether Ms. Ellis is ab le to continue representing the father in this appeal

.(2) If the trial court determines that M s. Ellis cannot or should not continue representing th e father in this appeal, the court shall appoint new appellate
counsel for the father

. (3) The trial court will ent er any n ecessary orders and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law within 3 days of the date of the show cause hearing

. In addition, we order the court repor ter and the trial court clerk to take the following
action within 5 days from the date of th e show cause hearing:

(1) Th e c ourt reporter will file with thi s court a supplemental reporter ’ s record of the show cause hearing

. (2) The trial court clerk will file a supplemental clerk ’ s record including the
trial court ’ s findings of fact and conclusions o f law and any orders issued
since the date of this order

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_

/s/ Peter Kelly

_____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ March 16, 2021

___
----

|  | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of BioLineRx Ltd.; |
|--|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 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; |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial                condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 4. | The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules                13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: |
|--|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 5. | The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s                auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|--|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
EXHIBIT 34.1









ATTESTATION REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH


SERVICING CRITERIA FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES









REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders


Entergy Arkansas, Inc.


Little Rock, Arkansas





We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria For Asset-Backed Securities, that Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB applicable for Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC’s Senior Secured Transition Bonds (the “Securities”) as of December 31, 2010, and for the period August 18, 2010 through December 31, 2010, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), (1)(iii), (1)(iv), (2)(iii), (2)(vi), (4)(iii), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii), and (4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Securities.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Securities, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2010, and for the period August 18, 2010 through December 31, 2010 for Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC’s Senior Secured Transition Bonds is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





New Orleans, Louisiana


March 29, 2011