alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32


      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Advanced Technology Industries, Inc., on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Allan Klepfisz, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and James
Samuelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


Date:   July 22, 2005                 /s/ Allan Klepfisz
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Allan Klepfisz, President

Date:   July 22, 2005                 /s/ James Samuelson
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      James Samuelson, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.28

THIRD AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Third Amendment to the Employment Agreement of Terry L. Persinger (Third Amendment) is entered into by and between Terry L. Persinger
(Employee) and Mannatech, Incorporated (Employer), this 1st day of January, 2006, and amends that certain Employment Agreement entered into by and between the Employee and the Employer, effective November 1, 1999, First
Amendment effective January 1, 2002, and Second Amendment effective June 7, 2004.

This Third Amendment shall modify the terms of
the Employment Agreement as follows:

ARTICLE I.

Paragraph 2, first sentence shall be replaced with the following:

Employee is engaged to serve as
President and Chief Operating Officer at an annual salary of $371,280 (Three Hundred and Seven One Thousand, Two Hundred and Eighty Dollars) per annum, effective as of January 1, 2006.

In all other things except the foregoing Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Effective this 1st day of January, 2006.



|                                      |  |                         |  |                               
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|                                      |  | Mannatech, Incorporated
|                                      |  |                        
|/s/ Terry L. Persinger                |  | By:                     |  | /s/ Samuel L. Caster, Chairman
|Terry L. Persinger,                   |  |                         |  | Samuel L. Caster, Chairman    
|President and Chief Operating Officer |  |                         |  |
No. 96-5844.

#### Evans *v.*United States.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the 10-QSB of  American  Utilicraft  Corporation  (the
"Company"), the undersigned officers hereby certify that the Company's quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  that ended June 30, 2002 (the  "Report"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,

     a)   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

     b)   that information  contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of the issuer



     This certificate is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not
be  deemed  to be a part  of the  Report  or  "filed"  for  any  other  purposes
whatsoever.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this certificate to be signed by
it Chief Financial Officer and its Principal Accounting Officer this 9th day of
November, 2004.


 /s/ John J. Dupont                         /s/ M. Karen Shoemaker
-------------------------------------      -------------------------------------
John J. Dupont                             M. Karen Shoemaker
President and Chief Executive Officer      Principal Accounting Officer
# C_2013026EN.01002101.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2012 — Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer CropScience K.K.

(Case C-477/12)

2013/C 26/39

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hogan Lovells International LLP

Applicant:

Defendant: Bayer CropScience K.K.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

For the purpose of the application of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96, (1) must account be taken exclusively of a marketing authorisation under Article 4 of Directive 91/414/EEC or Article 8(1) thereof, or can a certificate also be granted on the basis of a marketing authorisation which has been granted under Article 8(4) thereof?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30).

1

---
No. 96-5982.

#### Carmona de la Torre v. United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 14.1


                        NEW CALEDONIAN GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
                        RR 6, 1450 Davidson Road
[NCG LOGO]      NCG     Gibsons, B.C., Canada V0N 1V6
                        Vancouver phone (604) 684-6864 fax (604) 608-2957
                        e-mail peter@ronning.cao http://www.ronning.ca
                --------------------------------------------------------------
                consulting to the mineral exploration industry since 1989



                                                Peter A. Ronning, P. Eng.

                                                27 August, 2003

Pacific Rim Mining Corp.
Suite 410 - 625 Howe Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2T6

                          RE: PACIFIC RIM MINING CORP.
Ladies and Gentlemen:

     In connection with the filing of this annual report on Form 20-F of Pacific
Rim Mining Corp. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2003 (the "Form 20-F"), we
hereby consent to the reference of the description of the reports prepared by us
titled Review of the El Dorado Project, El Salvador, and Review of the La Calera
Project, El Salvador, both dated 22 August 2003 (collectively, the "Technical
Reports"); to the written disclosures and extracts from the Technical Reports or
a summary of the Technical Reports in the written disclosure contained in the
Form 20-F; the description of certain mineral resource estimates and other
information pertaining to the properties described in the Technical Reports and
to the use of our name in the Form 20-F as a named expert.



                                 Yours sincerely

                                 "P. Ronning"

                                 Peter A. Ronning, P.Eng.
From: Szabo, Aaron To: Fisher, Brian ; Risley, David Cc: Stenhouse, Jeb Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (RIN 2060-AS05) Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 12:57:18 PM Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO12866_13563 EPA CSAPR Update NPR....docx


## Attached please find the summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the draft proposed rule entitled, Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

. Thank you and please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Aaron L. Szabo Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget 202-395-3621 Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
#### Simpson Gray, Appellant, v Rudolph Crew et al., Respondents.

[699 NYS2d 408]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered December 23, 1998, which denied plaintiff’s motion to preliminarily enjoin his reassignment to administrative duties pending determination of disciplinary proceedings brought against him by respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to plaintiffs claims of procedural violations, the Community Superintendent properly notified plaintiff, in *99advance of the filing of charges and specifications, of the nature of the complaints against him *(see,*Education Law § 2590-j [7] [c]), and properly exercised its discretionary authority in directing a transfer of plaintiff to the District Office, pending determination of disciplinary proceedings then in progress *(see,*Education Law § 2590-j [8] [a]). There is no basis for plaintiff’s claim of per se irreparable harm due to an alleged violation of due process rights arising from the disputed transfer, since the discretionary transfer to which plaintiff was subject does not implicate due process concerns *(see, Bernheim v Litt,*79 F3d 318, 322-323). Nor has plaintiff shown irreparable financial or professional harm attributable to the Superintendent’s action, since the transfer did not entail any reduction in plaintiff’s pay, and plaintiffs lawsuit provides the basis for recovery of damages, if any. The motion court, then, properly denied plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction, since plaintiff made no showing of his probability of success on the merits, danger that he would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of the requested relief, or that the equities balanced in his favor *(see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso,*75 NY2d 860, 862). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-99645, Form S-8 No. 333-74124, Form S-8 No. 333-55364, Form S-8/S-3 No. 333-34202 and Form S-8 No. 333-42952) pertaining to the
1998 Stock Plan, as amended, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended, the 1999 Directors Option Plan, as amended, the Holographix Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, as amended, the Holographix Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan, as amended, and the
LambdaFlex, Inc. 2000 Stock Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-74126) and in the related Prospectuses of Avanex Corporation of our report dated July 25, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Avanex Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2002.





San Jose, California


September 12, 2002
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly report of E-City Software, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Anis Jessa, Chief Executive Officer, 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


     Anis Jessa
     ----------
     /s/

     Name: Anis Jessa
     Title: Chief Executive Officer
     Date: November 19, 2002
#### S. Stern Stiner & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6523.

Entry No. 712659, etc.

Invoices dated Hucknall, England, October 1942, etc.

Certified October 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 24, 1942, etc.

(Decided November 18, 1946)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tiuson, Judge:

The appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, were filed by the plaintiffs seeking to have the appraised values of the merchandise reduced by the amount of the so-called British purchase tax. In their stipulation of submission counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the issues involved herein and the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, are similar in all material respects, and the record in that case has been admitted in evidence herein..

Upon the agreed facts, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by these appeals to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added by the importers on entry to meet advances mad'e by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-102089, 333-102091, 333-64193 and 333-90361 on Form S-8,No. 333-109116 on Form S-3 and No. 333-90597 on Form S-4 of our reports dated July 7, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of School Specialty, Inc., and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of School Specialty, Inc. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

July 7, 2005
No. 54949.

#### Reitmann-Pilcer Co. *v.*United States,

protest 160173-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
# C_2014372EN.01001401.xml

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — Micrus Endovascular v OHIM — Laboratórios Delta (DELTA)

(Case T-218/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DELTA - Earlier national and international figurative marks DELTA PORTUGAL and company name LABORATORIOS DELTA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 372/18

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Micrus Endovascular LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Laboratórios Delta Lda (Queluz, Portugal) (represented by: J. Sena Mioludo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

da

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2012 (Case R 244/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratórios Delta Lda and Micrus Endovascular Corp.

da

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action.

| 2) | Orders Micrus Endovascular LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Micrus Endovascular LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

1

---
No. 39095.

#### Protests 890831-G, etc., of Bloomingdale Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of wood stands similar to those passed upon in *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409). The claim at 33% percent under paragraph 412 was therefore sustained.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1664 

To amend titles 28 and 10, United States Code, to allow for certiorari 

review of certain cases denied relief or review by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 6, 2011 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend titles 28 and 10, United States Code, to allow 

for certiorari review of certain cases denied relief or 

review by the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equal Justice for Our 

5 Military Act of 2011’’. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1664 IS

1 SEC. 2. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF AP2 PEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1259 of title 28, United 

4 States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘or denied’’ 

6 after ‘‘granted’’; and 

7 (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘or denied’’ 

8 after ‘‘granted’’. 

9 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

10 (1) TITLE 10.—Section 867a(a) of title 10, 

11 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘The 

12 Supreme Court may not review by a writ of certio13 rari under this section any action of the Court of 

14 Appeals for the Armed Forces in refusing to grant 

15 a petition for review.’’. 

16 (2) TIME FOR APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CER17 TIORARI.—Section 2101(g) of title 28, United States 

18 Code, is amended to read as follows: 

19 ‘‘(g) The time for application for a writ of certiorari 

20 to review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals 

21 for the Armed Forces, or the decision of a Court of Crimi22 nal Appeals that the United States Court of Appeals for 

23 the Armed Forces refuses to grant a petition to review, 

24 shall be as prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court.’’. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1664 IS

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), the 

3 amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon the 

4 expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of 

5 the enactment of this Act and shall apply to any petition 

6 granted or denied by the United States Court of Appeals 

7 for the Armed Forces on or after that effective date. 

8 (b) AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE RULES.—The au9 thority of the Supreme Court to prescribe rules to carry 

10 out section 2101(g) of title 28, United States Code, as 

11 amended by section 2(b)(2) of this Act, shall take effect 

12 on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
34031.

#### GIBSON v. GILES.

Per curiam.

Beverly Crozier Giles Gibson appeals from a judgment granting a reduction in the child support payments due by her former husband, Donald Arthur Giles.

In a divorce action between the parties a judgment was entered which provided, in part, that the former husband would pay $80.77 per week per child for the support of their two minor children. This judgment was based on the agreement of the parties.

The former husband sought a modification of the amount of child support, alleging a change in his income and financial status since the date of the judgment. The jury hearing the modification action found that there had been a change in the financial status of the former husband, and reduced the child support payments to $47.50 per week per child.

The former wife filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. The first error enumerated is the overruling of the general grounds of her motion for new trial.

The evidence showed that the former husband’s salary of $25,000 per year as a veterinarian remained the same from the time of the alimony judgment to the time of the modification trial. Since the date of the judgment he has received nominal amounts of income from one business venture, and has lost a small amount in another business venture. He has occasionally received additional income by doing part-time work helping an electrician.

The former husband’s balance sheets showed that his net worth prior to the settlement agreement was $1,582.90, and that his net worth shortly after filing the *721modification petition was minus $21,788.84. It is this decrease in net worth which he relies on to obtain a modification of the child support payments.

Argued September 19, 1978

Decided November 21, 1978

Rehearing denied December 19, 1978.

*Westmoreland, Patterson & Moseley, Stewart R. Brown,*for appellant.

*J. Sewell Elliott,*for appellee.

An analysis of the balance sheets and the testimony of the former husband shows that his assets decreased because of the obligations imposed on him by the settlement agreement, which was made the judgment of the court, and his increased living expenses in furnishing a home and support for his new wife and her child. He had not had financial reverses of any kind.

A decrease in net worth caused merely by increased living expenses is not such a change in financial status as would authorize a jury to reduce the child support payments he is obligated to pay. Compare *Crawford v. Crawford,*238 Ga. 619 (234 SE2d 529) (1977). The trial judge erred in overruling the general grounds of the motion for new trial.

Since the judgment in favor of the former husband must be reversed, it is unnecessary to deal with the other enumerated errors of the former wife.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Jordan, J., who dissents.*
#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. (Grailville Publishing Co.) et al. *v.*United States

No. 7723.

Entry No. 416, etc.

(Decided July 28, 1949)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (Walter Auster*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States,*R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached *261schedule, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances; by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is. defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis', for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved'^, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in: similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
May 26, 1950

No. 54358.

Suit 4637.

#### United States *v.*American Pistachio Corp.

C. D. 1198. (Appeal dismissed March 31, 1950.)