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



Exhibit 32.1

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 DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Ho-Shang Lee, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ho-Shang Lee                                               
|Ho-Shang Lee                                                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer (chief executive officer)

August 13, 2003

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.

- 26 -
# C_2014078EN.01001804.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/18

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Xeda International and Others v Commission

(Case T-415/12) (1)

1

2014/C 78/38

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

1

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1747 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to modify provisions 

relating to the exemption for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or other similarly skilled workers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2011 

Mrs. HAGAN (for herself, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. ENZI, and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to modify 

provisions relating to the exemption for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or other similarly skilled workers. 

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 ‘‘Computer Profes5 sionals Update Act’’ or the ‘‘CPU Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1747 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 

2 OF 1938. 

3 Section 13(a)(17) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

4 of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(17)) is amended to read as 

5 follows: 

6 ‘‘(17) any employee working in a computer or 

7 information technology occupation (including, but 

8 not limited to, work related to computers, informa9 tion systems, components, networks, software, hard10 ware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or 

11 websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, de12 signer, developer, administrator, or other similarly 

13 skilled worker, whose primary duty is— 

14 ‘‘(A) the application of systems, network or 

15 database analysis techniques and procedures, 

16 including consulting with users, to determine or 

17 modify hardware, software, network, database, 

18 or system functional specifications; 

19 ‘‘(B) the design, development, documenta20 tion, analysis, creation, testing, securing, con21 figuration, integration, debugging, modification 

22 of computer or information technology, or ena23 bling continuity of systems and applications; 

24 ‘‘(C) directing the work of individuals per25 forming duties described in subparagraph (A) 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1747 IS

1 or (B), including training such individuals or 

2 leading teams performing such duties; or 

3 ‘‘(D) a combination of duties described in 

4 subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the perform5 ance of which requires the same level of skill; 

6 who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less 

7 than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary 

8 basis at a salary level as set forth by the Depart9 ment of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Fed10 eral Regulations. An employee described in this 

11 paragraph shall be considered an employee in a pro12 fessional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1).’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Employment Offer Letter Agreement with Hans-Peter Guler, M.D.



 EXHIBIT 10.9 
 

 
 TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT 
 1. Employer: Phenomix Corporation (“Phenomix”). 
 2. Employee: Hans-Peter Guler,
M.D. (“Employee”). 
 3. Title: Vice President, Clinical Development. 
 4. Commencement Date: July 13, 2004 (“Start Date”). 
 5. Level of Commitment: Full-time basis. 
 6. Reports to: Executive Vice President,
Research & Development 
 7. Salary: $300,000.00 per year, to be earned and paid in semi-monthly installments, payable in
arrears, less applicable withholding tax and payroll deductions. 
 8. Transition Benefits: Phenomix will pay reasonable and customary
moving and transitional accommodation expenses of Employee, provided that such moving and transitional accommodation expenses combined shall not exceed $30,000.00 and provided further that written documentation of such expenses is provided to
Phenomix within 90 days of hire date. Any remaining balance of this amount will be paid to Employee after 90 days of employment. In addition, Phenomix will provide you with a monthly housing allowance of $2,500.00 per month, for three
(3) months. 
 9. Stock Option: Phenomix will recommend that its Board of Directors grant to Employee a stock option to acquire
300,000 shares of common stock of Phenomix at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant. Such stock option grants will be on customary terms, provided that the stock options will become
vested and exercisable over a period of four years, with 25% of options becoming vested and exercisable on the first anniversary of the Start Date, and the remaining 75% becoming vested and exercisable monthly over months 13 through 48 following the
Start Date. 
 10. Benefits: Employee shall be entitled to customary employee benefits, such as group health insurance coverage,
participation in a 401(k), and other benefits offered by Phenomix to other employees at a similar level of responsibility. 
 11.
Phenomix’s Policies: Employee will be required to comply with customary Phenomix policies, including without limitation, maintaining the confidentiality of Phenomix’s confidential information, assigning to Phenomix inventions made
by Employee during the term of employment, and not pursuing competitive activities during the term of employment. 








 
Employee will be required to sign Phenomix’s standard employee confidential information and inventions agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto.

 12. Duration: Employee’s employment with Phenomix will be “at will,” which means that Employee has the right to
terminate employment with Phenomix at any time and that Phenomix reserves for itself an equal right to terminate the relationship. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to modify this at will employment relationship. 
 REVIEWED AND APPROVED: 
  

					
	June 10, 2004	 		 	PHENOMIX CORPORATION
			
	 	 		 	/s/ Laura K. Shawver
		 		 	Laura K. Shawver, Ph.D.
		 		 	President & Chief Executive Officer

  

					
	June 12, 2004	 		 	EMPLOYEE
			
	 	 		 	/s/ Hans Peter Guler
		 		 	Hans-Peter Guler, M.D.

  

 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. SAMUEL CONYERS, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 618 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
# C_2013026EN.01007503.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/75

---

Action brought on 14 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-138/12)

2013/C 26/157

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant on the list of persons having passed the final exams of the training course forming part of the certification process and an application for compensation.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant on the list of persons having passed the final exams of the training course forming part of the certification process; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant on the list of persons having passed the final exams of the training course forming part of the certification process;

| — | order the Commission to pay a sum of EUR 10 000 to the applicant as compensation for damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay a sum of EUR 10 000 to the applicant as compensation for damage suffered;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofMathStar, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009(the “Quarterly Report”), I, Alex H. Danzberger, Jr., Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.        TheQuarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));and

 

2.        Theinformation contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  August 14, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Alex H. Danzberger, Jr.                         |
|----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                             |   | Alex H. Danzberger, Jr.                             |
|                             |   | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Case No. 5,595.

#### GOODYEAR DENTAL VULCANITE CO. v. PRETERRE.

[Cited in Celluloid Manuf’g Co. v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., Case No. 2,543. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]

[See Case No. 5,596.]
No. 46444.

#### Protests 34476-K, etc., of Burns Lumber Co. (Los Angeles).

*294Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protests were therefore sustained.
#### The City of Paola v. William Z. Garman *et ux.*

No. 16,098.

*Watercourse*— Findings. The findings of fact held to show the non-existence of a watercourse.

Error from Miami district court; S. D. Scott, judge-pro *tern.*

Opinion filed July 3, 1909.

Affirmed.

*B. T. Riley,*for the plaintiff in error.

*Lane & Lane,*and *S. J. Shively,*for the defendants, in error.

*Per Curiam:*

The city of Paola brought suit to enjoin the obstruction of an alleged natural watercourse. The defendants own and occupy as their residence three-lots in the city of Paola, through which the city claims, there is a natural watercourse. It also claims that the-defendants have wrongfully obstructed the same, thereby diverting the water from its usual channel, and causing it to accumulate in one of the streets. The-court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and denied the injunction. Judgment was rendered in favor-of the defendants for costs. The plaintiff complains, and has brought the cause here upon the'findings, without evidence, contending that the findings as a whole-entitle it to a judgment. The court, however, made two» *703findings which seem to.conclude the plaintiff. They are as follow:

> “ (11) The water which flows along the depression or in the ditch through defendants’ lots is wholly surface-water at this time.”

> “(22) That the depression or ditch mentioned and described in these findings, over and through which water flows after a rain or from melting snows, where it crosses the lots of the defendants, is not a natural watercourse.”

From these facts it necessarily followed that the defendants were entitled to judgment, since the owner of land may prevent surface-water from coming on his. premises. *(Palmer v. Waddell,*22 Kan. 352; *A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Hammer,*22 Kan. 763; *Gibbs v. Williams,*25 Kan. 214; *K. C. & E. Rld. Co. v. Riley,*33 Kan. 374.)

The plaintiff, however, contends that other findings show conclusively that the waterway in question is a. natural watercourse. The court made very full and complete findings, but we have been unable to discover any which is not in harmony with those-we have quoted, to the effect that the water complained of is surface-water and that the ditch or depression is not a natural watercourse.

It is also claimed that the court erred in denying-plaintiff’s motion to change or modify certain findings of fact and in refusing to make other findings. As none of the evidence is before us these claims of error can not be considered. The judgment is affirmed.
No. 45296.

#### Petitions 6078-R, etc., of Osaki Shoten, Ltd. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

The petitions were dismissed as improperly filed.
-82 -80 -78 -76

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

09/08

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 08 Sep 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL
#### William G. Holmes *vs.*John Wright.

*Error to Muscatine.*

It is no ground of error, that the venue in the declaration, is laid in the wrong county.

Hastings, for plaintiff in error.

Lows & Whicher, for defendant in error.

By the Court,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The first assignment of errors in this case alleges, that the writ summons the defendant to appear in the District Court of Muscatine county, while the venue in the declaration is laid in Johnson county. This is a matter of form, which might have been set right by special demurrer, but furnishes no ground for disturbing the judgment.

The other point, that the judgment being upon a promissory note, by default, no writ of enquiry was awarded, and no verdict rendered upon the same, is sufficiently answered by referring to the statute, and to the case of Davis vs. Morford and others, just decided. The judgment below will therefore be affirmed.
Exhibit
      32.1











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 DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ho-Shang Lee,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





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








/s/
      Ho-Shang Lee


Ho-Shang
      Lee


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


(chief
      executive officer)








August
      12, 2005





This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
# C_2015429EN.01001501.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2015 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission

(Case T-253/12) (1)

1

((State aid - Sale and leasing of land and a production site - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery thereof - No competitive tendering procedure - Determination of the market price - Private investor test - Effect on trade between Member States))

(2015/C 429/19)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hammar Nordic Plugg AB (Trollhättan, Sweden) (represented by: I. Otken Eriksson and U. Öberg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents, assisted by L. Sandberg-Morch, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2012/293/EU of 8 February 2012 on State aid SA.28809 (C 29/10) (ex NN 42/10 and ex CP 194/09) implemented by Sweden in favour of Hammar Nordic Plugg AB (OJ 2012 L 150, p. 78)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hammar Nordic Plugg AB to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hammar Nordic Plugg AB to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.

1

---
No. 55576.

#### Sze Lee Wo & Co. and The Columbia Co. *v.*United States,

protests 846036-G and 794367-G (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained as follows: (1) Dried fungus assessed at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 774 as vegetables in their natural state, stipulated to be similar inwall material respects to that the subject of *Quong Yu Wo*v. *United States*(68 Treas. Dec. 668, T. D. 48003), was held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 775 as vegetables, prepared or preserved; (2) bak hop, lotus nuts, sui sit, yuk chuk, wai san, sarsum, lo hon qua, mok qua, and yuen yuk assessed at 35 percent under paragraphs 775 and 752 as vegetables or fruits, prepared, or at 50 percent under paragraph 774 as vegetables in their natural state, or at 10 percent under pargaraph 34 as drugs, advanced, the same as the merchandise passed upon in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372), were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs; and (3) apricot kernels classified under paragraph 756 as shelled almonds, similar to those involved in Abstract 34104, were held dutiable at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762.
No. 74-362.

#### Intercounty Construction Corp. et al. *v.*Walter, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Employees' Compensation, U. S. Department of Labor, et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 419 U. S. 1119.] Motion of the Solicitor General to permit Frank H. Easterbrook, Esquire, to argue *pro hac vice*granted.
# C_2014078EN.01000901.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council

(Joined Cases T-174/12 and T-80/13) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Adaptation of the claim - Time-limit - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Rights of defence)

2014/C 78/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank SAL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: P. Vanderveeren, L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and S. Cook, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulation in part, firstly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Article [32](1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 6); secondly, of Council Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP of 23 January 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 33); thirdly, Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21); fourthly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1117/2012 of 29 November 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 9); fifthly, the ‘decision letters’ of the Council of 24 January 2012 and 30 November 2012 notifying the applicant of the restrictive measures affecting it; sixthly, Council Decision 2013/109/CFSP of 28 February 2013 amending Decision 2012/739/CFSP (OJ 2013 L 58, p. 8); seventhly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1); eighthly, Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), in so far as those acts affect the applicant’s situation.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank SAL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank SAL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

1

---