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 Annual Report of Secured Digital Applications,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December  31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Patrick Soon-Hock Lim, Chief Executive Officer (principal  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, to my knowledge:

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

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


/s/ Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
-------------------------
Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
Chief Executive Officer
April 16, 2007
No. 10728.

#### Throckmorton *v.*Bartholomew.

Decided December 22, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Ross county.

*Mr. Gilbert H. Stewart; Mr. Mills Gardner; Mr. John Logan*and *Mr. John I. Throckmorton,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Peter J. Blosser,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Si-iauck, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT NO. 15





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Gerber Scientific, Inc.


            Re: Registration Statements on Form S-8,
                File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,
                No. 333-26177, No. 333-42879,
                No. 333-81447, No. 333-83463 and
                No. 333-39754

                Registration Statement on Form S-3,
                File No. 33-58670


With   respect   to  the  subject  Registration  Statements,   we
acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report  dated
November  29,  2000  related to our review of  interim  financial
information.

Pursuant  to  Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such  reports
are not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or
certified  by an accountant or a report prepared or certified  by
an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.





/ s / KPMG LLP


KPMG LLP




Hartford, Connecticut
December 14, 2000
# C_2020304EN.01001702.xml

| 14.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/17

---

Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Banque postale v SRB

(Case T-449/20)

(2020/C 304/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: La Banque postale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






  — | Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:

—

Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;

| — | Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;

| — | Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-444/20, Société générale and Others v SRB.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Billy Wayne SINCLAIR v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54089.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1973.

In re: Billy Wayne Sinclair applying for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Writ denied. Insufficient showing to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J.,

concurs. However, the constitutional and statutory provisions discriminating against women for jury service are unconstitutional.
#### Clifford O. ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1379.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 6, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; W. Rogers Turner, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### JAMES BOOTH’S Ex’r. *vs.*DICKINSON WEBSTER, Administrator of LEWIS ALFREY, deceased.

Though mere inadequacy of price is not sufficient to avoid a sheriff’s sale of land, any irregularity connected with it will be regarded as causing the sacrifice of the property, and the court will set the sale aside.

A sale made by thb sheriff under circumstances inducing public belief that there would be no sale; and the property sold to the sheriff’s son, as a secret bidder, at a sacrifice, though there had been a previous attempt to sell, and though the sale was now conducted fairly and in good faith, was set aside for irregularity.

Rule to show cause why the sale of defendant’s land should not be set aside.

A farm of Lewis Alfrey was sold by the sheriff on judgment and execution for $590. It was the second attempt at a sale; there being no bids on the first trial, and but few bidders on the second, there being an impression that the administrator of Alfrey would arrange with the plaintiff, who was known to be inclined to grant every indulgence, to prevent the sale. It went on, however, and was conducted fairly; though the sheriff’s son, who was a secret bidder, became the purchaser at a very inadequate price. The sheriff announced the fact that he had brought bids with him, and gave full opportunity for competition. Yet there were persons present who were willing to give, and would have given $2,500 for the property, but for the impression that the administrator would be able to prevent a sale.

The question was whether, upon these facts, the court would confirm the sale.

*By the*Court:

The mere inadequacy of price is not a sufficient ground for setting aside a sale of land, hut the court will lay hold of any irregularity to set the sale aside in case of gross inadequacy.

There is enough in this case to warrant this; and the property did not sell for one-fourth its value. It is the impolicy of allowing a sheriff to sell to his son as a *secret*bidder.

It is conceded that the sheriff cannot sell land to himself; not because he is prohibited by any law, but from the danger of fraud. The buyer and the seller cannot be the same person; not because they have opposing interests, but because in case of a sheriff there is no mode of fixing the responsibility of the bidder as other bidders are fixed. If he makes a bid secretly for his son, and it turns out a bad purchase, there is nothing by which he can be made to return it sold. In the near between them the *130transaction into suspicion, and the danger- of abuse, which we do not impute in this case in fact, but as a matter of dangerous precedent which ought to be avoided.

Whiteley, for defendant.

*Gray*and *Bayard,*for the purchaser.

Buie absolute.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-40195 Summary Calendar

_____________________

THOMAS L. ATCHISON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(9:94-CV-94)

_________________________________________________________________ August 25, 1997 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas L. Atchison, Texas prisoner no. 605353, appeals, p ro

se , the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2), of his civil rights complaint. The record shows that

no defendant was deliberately indifferent to his Atchison’s serious

medical needs; therefore, we do not address his contention that the

district court erred by dismissing, as time-barred, those claimsagainst certain of the defendants. V arnado v. Lynaugh
, 920 F.2d

320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); Bickford v. International Speedway Corp. ,
654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981).

Atchison’s claim that Dr. Ronald Reed denied him medical care

is baseless. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its

discretion either by not ordering discovery on the claim of racial

discrimination or by dismissing the retaliation claims against Dr.

Reed and “John Doe”. Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied

, 498 U.S. 901 (1990), and cert. denied

, 498

U.S. 1069 (1991); Hale v. Harney , 786 F. 2d 688, 690 (5th Cir.

1986).

Atchison’s motions for appointment of counsel, transfer of his

retaliation claims, discovery, reinstatement of his complaint, and

a hearing on “accrual” are DENIED

.
The judgment is

AFFIRMED

.
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 12

GTE Southwest Incorporated

STATEMENT OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Three
                                                                      Months Ended
                                                                     March 31, 1998
                                                                     --------------
<S>                                                                   <C>       
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income before extraordinary charge                                  $   56,039
  Add - Income taxes                                                      29,658
      - Fixed charges                                                     19,783
                                                                      ----------
Adjusted earnings                                                     $  105,480
                                                                      ==========

Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                                    $   17,567
  Portion of rent expense representing interest                            2,216
                                                                      ----------
Adjusted fixed charges                                                $   19,783
                                                                      ==========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                          5.33
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,033,008
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,071,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (85,988)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,405,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,342,064
<PP&E>                                      60,957,696
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,800,075
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              96,122,397
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,400,603
<BONDS>                                     80,712,166
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,577,000
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (16,998,411)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                96,122,397
<SALES>                                     11,398,223
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,972,629
<CGS>                                        3,479,381
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,559,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                59,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,719,067
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,694,127
<INCOME-TAX>                                   381,614
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,312,513
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,184,357
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   436.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   436.87
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40546

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR RODRIGUEZ-BALVANEDA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-1025-1

Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Edgar Rodriguez-Balvaneda

raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. 

Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that knowledge 

of drug type and quantity is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841. Accordingly, Rodriguez-Balvaneda’s unopposed motion for summary 

disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 17, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40546 Document: 00512666173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2014
#### Mark LINSKY, by his father and next friend, Marshall Linsky, and Marshall Linsky, individually, Appellants, v. Fred William KAIN et al., Appellees.

No. 71-298.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,145
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                       138
<INVENTORY>                                     27,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,352
<PP&E>                                           2,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                     413
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,914
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,380
<SALES>                                         35,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,936
<CGS>                                           23,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,424
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    96
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,111
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,807
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,304
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOUND IN 
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT.  
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 0.6953
<CASH>                                          16,423
<SECURITIES>                                       560
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,254
<PP&E>                                         886,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                  98,343
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 903,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,800
<BONDS>                                        426,764
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       397,375
<OTHER-SE>                                    (95,404)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   903,876
<SALES>                                         45,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,050
<CGS>                                           35,247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,496
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (32,057)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,742)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Using US GAAP and SFAS 128, Basic and Diluted EPS are both $(0.35).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 00-981.

#### Kasler et al. *v.*Lockyer, Attorney General of California, et al.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
#### James MILLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43313.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 6, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 270 So.2d 774.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, Mc-CAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
#### W. L. NEELEY, Petitioner, v. SOUTH DIXIE PRODUCE, INC., Respondent.

No. 42397.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 19, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 260 So.2d 910.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
EX-10.40





 Exhibit 10.40 

 
 



 
 April 24, 2020 
 Ken
Reali 
 Re: Amendment to Employment Agreement 
 Dear
Ken: 
 This letter will serve to amend your employment agreement with Bioventus LLC dated as of March 14, 2020 (the “Agreement”) as follows:

  

	 	1.	 The effective date of the Agreement is hereby amended to be April 13, 2020 to coincide with the
commencement date of your employment. 


  

	 	2.	 The grant of 417,804 Phantom Profits Interest Units shall be awarded to you on or before July 1, 2020, and
will be subject to all of the terms of the plan, a copy of which will be made available for your review upon request. The vesting period for this award will commence on April 13, 2020 and the value of the Units will be determined based on the
most recent valuation completed on April 30, 2020. 


  

	 	3.	 All other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed in all
respects. 


 If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please so indicate by signing and dating a copy of this letter where indicated below.

 Sincerely, 
  

	
	 /s/ Williams A. Hawkins, III

	 William A. Hawkins, III

	 Chairman, Bioventus Board of Managers


  

					
	 Understood and Agreed:
  

	 /s/ Ken Reali
	 	            	 	 5/13/2020

	Ken Reali	 		 	Date
#### Barry Needleman et al., Appellants, v Burger King, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Steven Zavco, Also Known as Steven Zabwo, Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 68]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated February 28, 1996, as denied that branch of their cross motion which was for leave to enter a conditional default judgment against the defendant Steven Zavidow, sued herein as Steven Zavco, also known as Steven Zabwo, and, *sua sponte,*dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for leave to enter a conditional default judgment against the defendant Steven Zavidow, sued herein as Steven Zavco, also known as Steven Zabwo is granted unless that defendant serves an answer to the complaint within 30 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

It was an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion to deny that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for leave to enter a conditional default judgment against the de*340fendant Steven Zavidow, sued herein as Steven Zavco, also known as Steven Zabwo, and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Although the plaintiffs failed to seek leave to enter a default judgment within one year after Zavidow’s default in answering, they demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay and the existence of a meritorious cause of action against Zavidow *(see,*CPLR 3215 [c]; *Ingenito v Grumman Corp.,*192 AD2d 509; *Braunstein v Glachman,*157 AD2d 815). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
DOW RESTRICTED - For internal use only

October 18, 2012

Below is a description of the methods we use for MDI samples taken both within Dow and externally.

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS

Airborne concentrations of MDI were evaluated using the following method:

MDI
263 La. 101

#### J. C. BAKER, d/b/a Alexandria Welding and Press v. J. M. NELSON.

No. 52867.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 17, 1972.

In re: J. M. Nelson applying for certio-rari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Grant. 265 So.2d 825.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law.