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 Rapid Bio Tests Corporation, a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Geoffrey V.F. Seaman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Rapid Bio Tests Corporation, and will be retained by Rapid Bio Tests
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.


/s/ Geoffrey V.F. Seaman
--------------------------
Geoffrey V.F. Seaman
Chief Executive Officer
January 14, 2004
Exhibit 10.8


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO 

INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. 

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


 


The Investment
Technology Group, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) is amended as
set forth below 

effective March 26, 2007:


 


1.      The
definition of “Fair Market Value” as set forth in Section 2(i) of the Plan is
hereby amended to read, in its entirety, as follows:


 


“‘Fair Market Value” unless otherwise
required by an applicable provision of the Code, as of any date, means the closing
sales price of the Common Stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange on
the date as of which the valuation is made.”


 


	
  Adopted by
  the Board:

  	
  March 26, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

STEPHEN A. VARS, AN INDIVIDUAL,

Respondent

v.

B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, B.

BRAUN INTERVENTIONAL SYSTEMS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND B. BRAUN MEDICAL S.A.S., A FRENCH CORPORATION,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 26 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of May, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF**





**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**





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


**AS
      ADOPTED**  **PURSUANT
      TO**


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





I,
      Gary
      Wetstein, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB,
      as
      amended, of Non-Invasive Monitoring Systems, Inc., as amended, for the fiscal
      year ended July 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in such Annual Report of Form 10KSB, as amended, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Non-Invasive Monitoring Systems, Inc.




April
                22, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Gary WetsteinGary
                WetsteinChief
                Financial Officer
No. 6140.

#### SCHUYLER B. JONES vs. TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, ET AL.

Syllabus.

Where the defendant is amply protected against being surprised or misled to his prejudice -and the evidence is conclusive as to the identity of the parties, a variance between pleading and proof not affecting the gist of the action — such as in the Christian name of the plaintiff — is immaterial, and an amendment in that respect during the trial of the case is properly allowed by the Court.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 99,059. Hon. F. D. King, Judge.

Armand Romain, for plaintiff and appellee.

Plowe, Fenner, Spencer & Cocke, for defendant and appellant.

George Janvier, for W. C. Faust, defendant and appellant.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The trial Court supports its judgment in favor of plaintiff by the following written reasons:

> “In this case the liability of the defendant, W. C. Faust, for the damages sustained by plaintiffs is conceded. It is also conceded that, under the conditions of the railroad ticket purchased by the plaintiff, the Texas and Pacific Railroad Company is not liable.

> “Plaintiff, S. B. Jones, was thrown from the top of the transfer bus to the ground. He was uncon*317scions for a time. His back and hip were seriously injured, and he also received an injury to the right knee, which has incapacitated him for work. The injury to the knee has become chronic and permanent. Prom these injuries he suffered at the time severe physical pain and since still suffers. This accident has caused him, for a poor man, considerable expense.”

The point is made that the Court erred in permitting during the trial a correction in the name of plaintiff by substituting the name of Schuyler B. Jones for Samuel B. Jones. There is ample proof in the record of the identity of the party plaintiff; and as the Court offered to continue the case in order that the defendant might not be surprised nor misled, the amendment, which did not affect the gist of the action, was immaterial and was properly allowed.

Hereford vs. Lake, 15 A., 693.

Delisle vs. Bourriague, 105 La., 77.

Nor do we think that the record justifies a reduciton in the amount of damages awarded.

The plaintiff is about 50 years of age and was in good health prior to the accident. At the time of the trial more than one year thereafter, he was still suffering pain in his back, his hip, and ankle, and in both knees, and none of the physicians whom he consulted has been able to afford him relief. He has not recovered the full use of his legs and this partial disability is apparently permanent.

Moreover our examination of the recent decisions upon the subject confirms us in the belief that the sum allowed is the proper measure of plaintiff’s damage. 119 *318La., 344; 124 La., 531; 118 La., 530; 122 La. 626; 117 La., 1094.

Opinion and decree May 18, 1914.

The judgment is affirm'ed.

Judgment affirmed.
ex10_1.htm


    
      

    

    
      EXHIBIT
        10.1

      


      SUMMARY
        OF ZONES, INC BOARD MEETING FEES AND BASIC COMPENSATION

      


      


      Our
        non-employee directors receive a quarterly retainer fee of $2,500, in addition
        to $1,000 for each in-person meeting of the Board of Directors they
        attend.  Our non-employee directors also receive fees associated with
        the committee meetings they attend.  The Audit Committee is comprised
        of its chair, John Bauer, and members Kenneth Kirkpatrick and William
        Keiper.  The Compensation Committee is comprised of its chair, Kenneth
        Kirkpatrick, and members John Bauer, William Keiper and Cathi
        Hatch.  The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is comprised
        of its chair, Kenneth Kirkpatrick, and members John Bauer and Cathi
        Hatch.  The Strategic Matters Committee is comprised of its Chair,
        William Keiper, and member Kenneth Kirkpatrick.  From time to time,
        the Board of Directors may establish a new committee, eliminate an existing
        committee, or change the composition of the committees, based on current
        circumstances.  The following summarizes the fees paid to board
        members for committee meetings:

      


      


      
        	
                
                  Committee

                

              	 	
                
                  Position

                

              	 	
                
                  Compensation
                    per Committee Meeting

                

              	 
	
                Audit
                  Committee

              	 	
                Chair

              	 	$	
                7,500

              	 
	 	 	
                Member

              	 	$	
                2,000

              	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                Compensation
                  Committee

              	 	
                Chair

              	 	$	
                1,500

              	 
	 	 	
                Member

              	 	$	
                750

              	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
                Nominating
                  and Corporate Governance Committee

              	 	
                Chair

              	 	$	
                2,500

              	 
	 	 	
                Member

              	 	 	
                750

              	 


      

      


      The
        Strategic Matters Committee members are paid a quarterly fee, which is not
        based
        on meetings attended.  The Chair is paid $6,250 quarterly; members of
        the Strategic Matters Committee are paid $4,000 quarterly.
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Summit Environmental
      Corporation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2004 (the “Report”), I, Keith Parker, Chief Executive Officer of
      the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §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.





Dated:
      July 22, 2005


*/s/
                  Keith Parker*Keith
                    Parker
                  Chairman
                    and Chief Executive
                    Officer





The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.
No. 42191.

#### Protests 602765-G, etc., of C. Ascione, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
# C_2013171EN.01001501.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA

(Case C-143/13)

2013/C 171/29

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei

Applicants:

Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Having regard to the fact that, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) the assessment of the unfair nature of contractual terms must relate neither to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible language;

1

and

given that, under Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (2) the definition provided in Article 3(g) of that directive of the total cost of the credit to the consumer, which includes all the fees which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement, does not apply for the purposes of determining the subject-matter of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage;

2

Then:

can the concepts of ‘subject-matter’ and/or of ‘price’ referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that such terms — namely the ‘subject-matter’ and/or the ‘price’ of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage — also cover, among the elements which make up the consideration owed to the credit institution, the annual percentage rate of such a credit agreement secured by a mortgage, which is in particular made up of: the interest rate, whether fixed or variable; bank charges; and other costs included and defined in the credit agreement?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

1

(2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

2

---
# C_2016251EN.01002101.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Mega Brands v EUIPO — Diset (MAGNEXT)

(Case T-292/12 RENV) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark MAGNEXT - Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by V. Melgar and subsequently by H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Diset and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41375-41376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20275]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. ER97-2379-000, ER97-3818-000, and ER97-3819-000]


Minnesota Power & Light Company; Notice of Filing

July 28, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 10, 1997, Minnesota Power & Light Company 
(MP) tendered for filing a signed Settlement Agreement between MP and 
its municipal wholesale customer, the City of Virginia, Minnesota 
(Virginia), with jurisdictional exhibits, including:
    (a) Supplement No. 2 Amendment to the Municipal Service Agreement 
between Virginia and MP;
    (b) Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement between MP 
as transmission provider and MP as transmission customer with 
conforming direct assignment charges for subtransmission facilities; 
and
    (c) Service Agreement for nonfirm point-to-point Transmission 
Service between MP as transmission provider and MP as transmission 
customer, principally revising the direct assignment charges and rates 
for MP's subtransmission facilities to serve Virginia conditionally 
accepted by the Commission in Docket No. ER97-2380-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before August 8, 1997. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on

[[Page 41376]]

file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20275 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
(Reap. Dec. 9939)

#### Harry Solodow et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 866779, etc.

(Decided March 7, 1961)

*Barnes, Richardson & Ooibwrn*for the plaintiffs.

*WilUam S. Orriok, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawRence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated and the schedule attached to and made part of this decision relate to the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain household utensils.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed that said appeals are limited to the items marked “A” and initialed EM by Examiner Eobert Muir on the invoices accompanying the entries. It was further stipulated that, as so limited, the merchandise and the issues herein are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues involved in *Indussa Corp.*v. *United States,*47 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 93, C.A.D. 736, which record has been incorporated herein. The parties further stipulated and agreed that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption 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, were the appraised unit *629values, less 40 per centum, plus 10 per centum sales tax, plus packing, as invoiced.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue, and that said value is the appraised unit values, less 40 per centum, plus 10 per centum sales tax, plus packing, as invoiced. As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2412 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain digital camera lenses 

not exceeding 765.5 grams in weight. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 

digital camera lenses not exceeding 765.5 grams in weight. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN DIGITAL CAMERA LENSES NOT EX4 CEEDING 765.5 GRAMS IN WEIGHT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.51 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 certain digital camera lenses not exceeding 765.5 grams 

8 in weight) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

9 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2412 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Earl V. NICE and Marilyn Nice, v. DEACONESS HEALTH SERVICE CORP. d/b/a Deaconess Hospital.

No. 73292.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

July 28, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 30, 1998.

Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 24, 1998.

Leonard P. Cervantes, Marion G. Silva, St. Louis, for appellant.

*367Ross T. Anderson, Kemper R. Coffelt, Clayton, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and GRIMM and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Independent computer service contractor’s employee appeals from the granting of hospital’s motion for summary judgment in a premises liability action. No error of law appears. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2251 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 576
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2251

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 709 West 9th 
    Street, Juneau, Alaska, as the ``Robert Boochever United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2012

  Mr. Begich (for himself and Ms. Murkowski) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

                           December 27, 2012

               Reported by Mrs. Boxer, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 709 West 9th 
    Street, Juneau, Alaska, as the ``Robert Boochever United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT BOOCHEVER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse located at 709 West 
9th Street, Juneau, Alaska, shall be known and designated as the 
``Robert Boochever United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Robert Boochever United States Courthouse''.
                                                       Calendar No. 576

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2251

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 709 West 9th 
    Street, Juneau, Alaska, as the ``Robert Boochever United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 27, 2012

                       Reported without amendment
```