alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1



Certifications



I, R.L. van Iperen, certify
that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report for Form
20-F of Océ N.V. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2004; and



2. Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual Report.



/s/    R.L. VAN IPERENR.L. van IperenChairman of the Board of Executive Directors




March 29, 2005
#### The CITY OF MELBOURNE, Florida, etc., Petitioner, v. James P. MARIELLI, Respondent.

No. 39819.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 7, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

DREW, Acting C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
---

EXHIBIT 8.1

SAND TECHNOLOGY INC. SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIESFor
the Year ended July 31, 2009

The following significant subsidiaries are consolidated in the
financial statements submitted as a part of this report:

|                                                | Jurisdiction of |  | Percentage of Voting
|----------------------------------------------- | --------------- |  | --------------------
|                                                | Incorporation   |  | Securities Owned    
|                                                |                 |  |                     
|Controlled by Sand Technology Inc.:             |                 |  |                     
|                                                |                 |  |                     
|Sand Technology Corporation                     | Delaware        |  | 100%                
|                                                | United States   |  |                     
|STSI Licensing, LLC                             | New Jersey      |  |                     
|                                                | United Sates    |  | 100%                
|Sand Technology (Ireland) Limited               |                 |  |                     
|                                                | Ireland         |  | 100%                
|                                                |                 |  |                     
|                                                |                 |  |                     
|Controlled by Sand Technology (Ireland) Limited |                 |  |                     
|                                                |                 |  |                     
|Sand Technology Deutschland GmBH                |                 |  |                     
|                                                | Germany         |  | 100%                
|Sand Technology Limited                         | England         |  | 100%                

---
#### Brooklyn Bailey HAYDEN and Mrs. Mayme Belle Sanders Hayden v. Peter TORRENCE and Cumis Insurance Society, Inc.

No. 62068.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Brooklyn B. Hayden and Mrs. Mayme Belle Sanders Hayden applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Tangipahoa. 355 So.2d 1362.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 32-1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John H. Sottile, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 The Goldfield Corporation and
will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/S/    JOHN H.
SOTTILEJohn H. SottileChairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)May 6, 2010
# C_2022398EN.01002502.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/25

---

Order of the General Court of 1 August 2022 — Preventicus v EUIPO (NIGHTWATCH)

(Case T-742/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 398/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Preventicus GmbH (Jena, Germany) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Preventicus GmbH, seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 September 2021 (Case R 1241/2020-4).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Preventicus GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Preventicus GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form  S-8  File  No.  33-65189, No. 333-03291, No. 333-15665, No. 333-53151 and
No.333-63051) pertaining to the various employee and director stock option plans
and  agreements  of  CT  Holdings,  Inc. of our report dated March 9, 2005, with
respect  to the financial statements of CT Holdings, Inc. included in the Annual
Report  (Form  10-KSB)  for  the  year  ended  December  31,  2004.


/s/ KBA GROUP LLP
-----------------
KBA GROUP LLP
Dallas, Texas
April 13, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Pedro (Pete) P. Rodriguez, 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, the Annual Report of Exar Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ended March 27, 2011 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 on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Exar Corporation.

Date: June 10, 2011



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/    PEDRO (PETE) P.
RODRIGUEZ               
|Pedro (Pete) P. Rodriguez                      
|Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
|(Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2022418EN.01002601.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Casanova v EIB

(Case T-266/21) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Termination of the contract at the end of the trial period - Lack of competence of the author of the act - Liability - Material damage - Premature claim for damages - Non-material damage)

(2022/C 418/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Casanova (Fort-de-France, France) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 12 June 2020 to terminate his contract at the end of the trial period, as well as the decision of 8 February 2021 by which the EIB rejected his request for conciliation and his request for review, and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage which he claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 12 June 2020 to terminate Mr Philippe Casanova’s contract at the end of the trial period; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 12 June 2020 to terminate Mr Philippe Casanova’s contract at the end of the trial period;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the EIB to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of Mr Casanova’s costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EIB to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of Mr Casanova’s costs;

| 4. | Orders Mr Casanova to bear half of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Casanova to bear half of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
#### UNITED STATES v. LAU BUNG FONG, etc.

No. 8499.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 22, 1937.

Ingram M. Stainback, U. S. Atty., of Honolulu, T. H.

Ebert J. Botts, of Honolulu, T. H., for appellee.

*1021Before GARRECHT and HANEY, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon motion of appellant, consented to by appellee, ordered appeal dismissed; that a decree of dismissal be filed and entered; mandate forthwith.
EXHIBIT 10.7

                    OFFICER EMPLOYMENT CONTINUATION AGREEMENT

Network  Equipment  Technologies,  Inc.  ("the  Company")  and  the  undersigned
("Officer"),   in  partial   consideration  for  their  continuing  officer  and
employment  relationship and to encourage continued employment in the event of a
potential Change of Control, agree as follows:

1. In the  event of  Termination  of  Employment  of  Officer  resulting  from a
Corporate  Transaction,  Change of Control or Hostile  Take-Over (as those terms
are  defined in the 1993 Stock  Option  Plan,  collectively  referred to in this
Agreement as "Change of Control") or from  involuntary  termination  for reasons
other than cause, the Company will provide severance benefits as follows:

     a.   one year of Officer's base salary ("salary continuance"),

     b.   one  year of  Officer's  variable  compensation  (computed  using  the
          mid-point of the applicable range and the company "meets plan"),

     c.   Officer level medical,  dental,  life and disability  insurance during
          the period of salary continuance, and

     d.   vesting of  outstanding  stock  options and  restricted  stock  awards
          during the period of salary continuance.

2.  "Termination  of  Employment"  of Officer  occurs when one of the  following
occurs: he or she is terminated without cause, job location is changed more than
50 miles, his or her compensation is materially reduced or responsibilities  are
substantially  altered or reduced  (without  express consent of the employee) by
the Company,  or by any successor to the Company in  conjunction  with or within
one year after the close of a Change of Control.

3. In the event of a Termination Of Employment in  conjunction  with a Change of
Control,  then vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock held by
Officer shall  accelerate at the time of such  Termination.  All vested  options
shall be exercisable for the duration of the life of the option.

4. In order to receive the  foregoing,  Officer  agrees to execute the Company's
release and  non-competition  agreement at the time of any such  Termination  of
Employment.

Agreed this 3rd day of June, 1996.

NETWORK EQUIPMENT                                        Samuel Ezekiel
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                                ------------------------------
                                                      (Print Name of Officer)

By: /s/ Joseph J. Francesconi                         /s/ Samuel Ezekiel
    -------------------------                     ------------------------------
                                                          (Signature)
Title: President & CEO

October 26, 1995                                             N.E.T. Confidential
# C_2021289EN.01002602.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE

(Case C-253/21)

(2021/C 289/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TUIfly GmbH

Respondents: FI, RE

Question referred

Must Article 5(1)(c)(iii), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a flight lands at an airport of arrival other than that for which the booking was made, which is not located in the same city, town or region as the airport of arrival for which the booking was made, and the passengers are subsequently transferred from that airport by coach to the airport of arrival for which the original booking was made, which the passengers reach with a delay in arrival of less than three hours, there is a cancellation of the flight?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
# C_2021278EN.01002701.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2021 –Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v MA, PB

(Case C-245/21)

(2021/C 278/38)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: MA, PB

Questions referred

| 1. | Does suspension by the authorities of the implementation of a transfer decision, which is revocable only on account of the fact that transfers are (temporarily) impossible in fact due to the COVID-19 pandemic, fall within the scope of Article 27(4) of the Dublin III Regulation (1) during appeal proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does suspension by the authorities of the implementation of a transfer decision, which is revocable only on account of the fact that transfers are (temporarily) impossible in fact due to the COVID-19 pandemic, fall within the scope of Article 27(4) of the Dublin III Regulation (1) during appeal proceedings?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does such a suspension decision interrupt the time limit for transfer pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does such a suspension decision interrupt the time limit for transfer pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Dublin III Regulation?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does this also apply if, prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a court had dismissed an application by the asylum seeker pursuant to Article 27(3)(c) of the Dublin III Regulation for implementation of the transfer decision to be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Does this also apply if, prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a court had dismissed an application by the asylum seeker pursuant to Article 27(3)(c) of the Dublin III Regulation for implementation of the transfer decision to be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                        30152666
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1743305
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      79501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              37455405
<PP&E>                                         4993892
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2485157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                56170389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         31096453
<BONDS>                                         357239
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         69773
<OTHER-SE>                                    24646924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  56170389
<SALES>                                        3020714
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3020714
<CGS>                                          5551477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5551477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2057194)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    761162
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1296032)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1296032)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William J. GUSTE, Jr., Attorney General v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF HIGHWAYS et al.

No. 53550.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General, State of Louisiana applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 275 So.2d 207.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
##### 



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 Day International Group, Inc
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Dennis R. Wolters, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to 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 position and results of operations of the
Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

/s/ Dennis R. Wolters
Dennis R. Wolters
Chief Executive Officer
May 7, 2004
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lloyd Charles FLETCHER, Jr.

No. 54005.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 11, 1973.

In re: Lloyd Charles Fletcher, Jr., applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ granted. The extradition is stayed for a period of 30 days to permit the State of North Carolina to furnish an amplified factual affidavit showing probable cause to arrest the relator or an indictment of relator for the crime. In default of furnishing either of the two documents within the time fixed, the extradition proceeding will be dismissed.

DIXON, J.,

concurs, but is of the opinion that the better practice would be to grant the writ. The affidavit to support an arrest warrant in an extradition proceeding must comply with the requirements for an affidavit to support any arrest warrant. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; Grano v. State, Del.Super., 257 A.2d 768.
#### John David JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-499.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[No. 524-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

January 24, 1972.]

#### The State *of*Washington, *Respondent,*v. Francis Clayton Palmer, *Appellant.*
#### Clarence SLOAN, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-380.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 15, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Earth Search
Sciences, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




Date:  July 12, 2005
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Larry F Vance
                                             Chairman of the Board and
                                             Chief Executive Officer