alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of BioLineRx Ltd. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to such officer’s knowledge that:





(i)    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated: March 17, 2014





/s/ Philip Serlin


Philip Serlin


Chief Financial and Operating Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(b)
                                ---------------


                        OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY
<PAGE>

          [Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company Letterhead]

April 10, 2001


Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa  52499-0001

Re:  Separate Account VA G
     Registration on Form N-4  SEC File No. 33-43518

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Dreyfus Access Advantage Variable Annuity
policies are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)   the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the Policies,

(2)   the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
      policies,

(3)   the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
      of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides for a
      reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)   Administrative Charge

(ii)  Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii) Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)  Any applicable rider fees or charges

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (iv)
is established in the pricing of the Dreyfus Access Advantage Variable Annuity,
to achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of
industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred.  Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or


accadvex 10b.doc
<PAGE>

Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company
April 10, 2001
Page 2



systems development expenses) are incurred "up front" and recovered, with a
reasonable profit margin, through future years' charges. In addition, the
company cannot increase certain charges under the Policies in the pricing
process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the Policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the Registration Statement.



       /s/ Calvin R. Birkey
--------------------------------------------------
Calvin R. Birkey, FSA, MAAA
Managing Actuary
Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

|   | (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: August                14, 2006 | By:                          | /s/ Tianfu                Yang |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                      | Tianfu                Yang             |
|                                      | Chief                Executive Officer |

| Date: August                14, 2006 | By:                          | /s/ Zedong                Xu |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                      | Zedong                Xu               |
|                                      | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Docket 4-2007]

Pursuant to a timely request from a directly affected party showing good cause (15 CFR § 400.51(b)), a public hearing will be held on the application for subzone status at the MPM Silicones, LLC, facility in Waterford, New York, submitted by the Capital District Regional Planning Commission, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 121 (72 FR 6518, 2/12/07). The public hearing will take place on April 18, 2007 at 2:00 pm, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. Interested parties should indicate their intent to participate in the hearing and provide a summary of their remarks no later than April 16, 2007 (see submission address below).

Pursuant to 15 CFR § 400.27(c)(2), the comment period for this case is being extended to May 3, 2007. Rebuttal comments may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until May 18, 2007. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2814B, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230.

                    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at                     *Elizabeth_Whiteman@ita.doc.gov*                     or (202) 482-0473.                

Dated: March 30, 2007.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-6408 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
No. 41901.

#### Protests 881921-G, etc., of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts 40493 and 39509 squawker balloons and cigarette whistles or noisemakers in part of bamboo were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 409 as claimed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report of Varca Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nadeem Lila, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, 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/ Nadeem Lila

Nadeem Lila
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Date: April 26, 2011











The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
# C_2007170EN.01003301.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/33

---

Action brought on 29 May 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHMI — Tequilas del Señor (TEQUILA GOLD Sombrero Negro)

(Case T-182/07)

(2007/C 170/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, laywer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tequilas del Señor S A de CV (Guadalajara, Mexico)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

The applicant requests that:

| — | The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 March 2007 in Case R 1285/2005-1 be annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 March 2007 in Case R 1285/2005-1 be annulled;

| — | the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Tequilas del Señor SA de CV

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark ‘TEQUILA GOLD Sombrero Negro’ for goods in Class 33 — application No 2 722 122

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The figurative national trade marks containing the word elements ‘SIERRA’ and ‘CACTUS JACK SHOOTER’ as well as the figurative national trade mark picturing a ‘red sombrero hat’ for goods in Class 33

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Aeolus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, John L. McManus, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company certifies 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 his 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.




Date:
      February 10, 2011/s/ John L. McManusJohn
      L. McManusPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




Date:
      February 10, 2011/s/ John L. McManusJohn
      L. McManusPrincipal
      Financial and Accounting Officer




THIS
CERTIFICATION “ACCOMPANIES” THE QUARTERLY REPORT, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE
SEC AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO ANY FILING OF THE COMPANY
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934, AS AMENDED (WHETHER MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE ANNUAL REPORT),
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERAL INCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH
FILING. A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS CERTIFICATION 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.
#### Arthur G. Yates, Resp’t, *v.*James J. Guthrie, App’lt.1

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed February 25, 1890.)*

Service—By mail—Judgment, when premature.

*The*time for defendant to answer expired March 36th. He and his attorney swore positively that the answer was mailed at Caledonia on the evening of the 36th, and that was the postmark on the envelope. The letter was received at Rochester after eleven a. m. on the 37th, when it should, in ordinary course, have reached there hy the morning mail. *Held,*that the entry of judgment on the 37th was premature, and that as the answer set up a defense and merits were shown, the judgment should not he allowed to stand as security.

Appeal from judgment of supreme court, general term, fifth department, affirming order of Monroe special term denying defendant’s motion to set aside a judgment and execution.

*William J. Byam,*for app’lt; *EarlB. Putnam,*for resp’t.

1

 Reversing 26 N. Y. State Rep., 593.

ANDREWS, J.

The fact that the answer was mailed at Caledonia on the evening of March 26, 1889, is established by the positive affidavits of the defendant and his attorney, and is corroborated by the postmark on the envelope which enclosed it. The letter was received at the Eochester post office on the 27th, but after eleven o’clock on the morning of that day. The affidavit of the assistant postmaster at Eochester states that a letter mailed at Caledonia on the 26th in ordinary course should have reached Eochester at the latest by the morning mail. But this *567does not contradict the positive testimony that the letter was put in the mail on the 26th. At most it affords ground for a conjecture that it may have been mailed after the 26th. But it is more consistent with probabilities that some delay occurred in forwarding the letter from Caledonia after its deposit, especially as the letter is stamped as received there on the 26th.

The entry of judgment on the 27th was, therefore, premature, and the right of the defendant to have the judgment set aside could not be clogged with the condition that it should stand as security, the answer setting up a defense and merits being shown.

The orders of the special and general terms should be reversed and the motion to set aside judgment granted.

All concur.
.*AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Lonnie Sites JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

vs. Case No. 2:11-cv-486

 Magistrate Judge King

Honda of America Manufacturing , Inc 

 

[] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

[X] Decision by Court. This action was decided by the Court without a trial or hearing.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Opinion and 

Order filed on December 5, 2011 granting motion for judgment on the

pleadings this action is dismissed. 

Date: December 5, 2011 James Bonini, Clerk

By: _s/Rashan Spraggins__________

 Rashan Spraggins , Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00486-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 12/05/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
(V.D. 113)

#### Camera Specialty Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 106814, etc.

(Decided July 27, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the third division of this court in *Camera Specialty*Company, *Inc.*v. *United*States, 42 Cust. Ct. 386, Abstract 63085. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, were to the effect that the protests had been prematurely filed and the matters were remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable values in the manner provided by law. (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d).)

The case has been submitted on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED hy and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States;

> That the merchandise consists of cameras and eases appraised at $11.65 for camera and ease, but held by the court in Abstract 63085 to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of article.

> That the market value or the price of the cameras and eases herein at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise *400in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was as set forth below:

> Value — each Entry No. and date Protest No. Cameras Cases

> 106814 5/25/63 292769-K/724 $10.15 $1.50

> 776304 11/5/54 313967-K/9713 10.15 1.50

> 854375 3/26/54 313975-K/11302 10.15 1.50

> 94380 1/19/53 314023-K/20963 10.15 1.50

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above remands of protests be submitted for decision upon this stipulation, the cases being limited to the merchandise appraised at $11.65 for camera and case.

On the agreed facts, I find, that the proper basis for appraisement of the articles in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for each class of merchandise is as set forth in the stipulation of submission embodied herein.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6773

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. OLUWASEGUN OGUN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. ( 4:12

- cr - 00004

- RBS

- TEM

1; 4:17

- cv - 00051

- RBS; 4:17

- cv - 00052

- RBS )

Submitted : August 24, 2017 Decided: August 29, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Oluwasegun Ogun, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Eric Matthew Hurt, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney s, Amy Elizabeth Cross, Special Assistant U nited States Attorney , Andrew Lamont Creighton , Rachel E. Timm , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Newport News, V irginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not bindin g precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Oluwasegun Ogun seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion challenging his criminal judgment as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it as successive . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ogun has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### John Campbell *et*al., App’lts, *v.*William D. Perry, Resp’t.

*Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,*

*Filed February 24, 1890.)*

Hsanio-ENCE—Parties—Husband cannot be joined in action for wife’s injuries.

In an action for personal injuries sustained by a wife through defendant’s negligence, the husband cannot be joined as a plaintiff.

Appeal from judgment sustaining demurrer and dismissing-the complaint, with costs.

The plaintiffs are husband and wife.. They bring this action for personal damages sustained by the wife through the negligence of defendant. The defendant demurred for misjoinder of plaintiffs. The court sustained the demurrer with leave to plaintiff Sarah Campbell to serve a new or amended complaint. She-refused to avail herself of this privilege and thereupon final judgment was given on the demurrer in favor of defendant for costs..

The plaintiffs appeal.

*James*Lansing, for app’lts; *Henry A.*King, for resp’t.

Learned, P. J.

We need add nothing to the careful opinion of the court below, except to mention the recent case of *Bennett*v. Bennett, court of appeals, second div., 23 N. E., 17; 27 N. Y.. State Rep., 679, affirming 41 Hun, 640. Two questions are discussed at length in that opinion. One is whether in an action for *671a personal injury to a wife the husband should join. The decision is that he should not.

We fully concur in the conclusion to which that court came ■and are glad that a question on which there has been some doubt, owing to careless legislation, has been set at rest in this satisfactory manner. It would be useless to go over the oft repeated account of common law rules and subsequent legislation

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Landon, J., concurs.