alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1



GENAERA CORPORATION



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roy C. Levitt, M.D., 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, as amended; 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/ Roy C. Levitt                    
|Roy C. Levitt, M.D.                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2004
Opinion issued August 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00379-CV

———————————

MIRIAM BLANK, Appellant

V.

JACK NUSZEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2008-51454

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Miriam Blank, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order 

denying her motion to vacate a “Default Order in Suit To Modify Parent-Child 

Relationship.” We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
2

Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final 

judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ne. 

Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). And an appellate 

court also has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order if a 

statute explicitly provides jurisdiction. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 

447–48 (Tex. 2011); Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) 

(orig. proceeding). In this case, the trial court’s order denying the motion to vacate 

is neither an appealable interlocutory order nor a final judgment. See Lehmann, 39 

S.W.3d at 195 (“A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all 

pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the 

decree.”); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing 

appeals from certain interlocutory orders). 

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court notified Blank that the appeal was subject 

to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless she caused to be filed a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing documents showing that the trial court had signed a final, 

or otherwise appealable, order or filed a written response showing how this Court 

has jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Blank has not 

responded.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss as moot all pending 

motions.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0595

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRETT BUCKY MATKOVICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 4, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 28 2021

06/28/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0595
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


**18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Hana
      Biosciences, Inc. does hereby certify that to the best of his knowledge:





(a)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hana Biosciences, Inc. for the three months
      ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of Hana Biosciences, Inc.


Dated:
                  November 8, 2007
              /s/
                  Steven R. Deitcher, MDSteven
                  R. DeitcherPresident
                  and Chief Executive OfficerDated:
                  November 8, 2007
              /s/
                  John P. IparraguirreJohn
                  P. IparraguirreVice
                  President, Chief Financial Officer




-
          1 -
# C_2008051EN.01005301.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/53

---

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Philips Lighting Poland and Philips Lighting v Council

(Case T-469/07)

(2008/C 51/97)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Philips Lighting Poland S.A. (Pila, Poland) and Philips Lighting BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: M. L. Catrain González, lawyer, and E. Wright, Barrister)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested regulation in its entirety or in so far as it affects the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested regulation in its entirety or in so far as it affects the applicants;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are producers of integrated fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) in the Community, seek the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (1).

1

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Council violated Articles 3(1), 9(4) and 11(2) of the Basic Regulation (2) by imposing anti-dumping duties where it has not been demonstrated that the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury to the Community industry.

2

The applicants further allege that the Council committed an error of law in relying on Article 9(1) of the Basic Regulation in a situation that does not fall within the scope of that article, as the complaint leading to the investigation had not been withdrawn.

Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of Article 253 EC in that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned in respect of the level of support from Community producers and the conclusion on Community interest.

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

2

---
STATEOFDELAWAREDEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCES&ENVIRONMENTALCONTROLDIVISIONOFAIR&WASTEMANAGEMENT156S.STATESTREETTELEPHONE:(302)739-9402DOVER,DELAWARE19901FAxNo.:(302)739-3106CERTIFICATIONSeptember2,2009IherebycertifythatapublichearingwasheldMay26,2009,onarevisiontotheStateofDelawareStateImplementationPlanfortheAttainmentandMaintenanceoftheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardsforOzone,amendingRegulationNo.1146-ELECTRICGENERATINGUNIT(EGU)MULTI-POLLUTANTREGULATION.Therevisionisanamendmentto,7DEAdmin.Code1146-ELECTRICGENERATiNGUNIT(EGU)MULTIPOLLUTANTREGULATION.7DEAdmin.Code1146wasoriginallypromulgatedinNovember2006(thenRegulationNo.1146oftheStateofDelawareRegulationsGoverningtheControlofAirPollution),andwassubmittedtotheEPAasaSIPrevisiononNovember16,2006ThisrevisionmodifiestheSO2massemissionslimitassociatedwithEdgeMoorUnit5(asconstrainedin1146’sTable5-1)from2427tonsperyearto4600tonsperyear,beginningincalendaryear2009.Nootherchangesto1146havebeenmade,includinganychangetotheexistingrequirementforUnit5toburnonlylowsulfuroil.TheeffectivedateoftherevisionisOctober10,2009.IfurthercertifythatthehearingwasheldinaccordancewiththenoticerequiredbySubsection51.102of4OCFR51.AdministratorAirQualityManagementDivisionofAirandWasteManagementPRINTEDONRECYCLEDPAPERCC.AIRQUALITYMANAGEMENTSECTIONVe€a4iae4T’ta(a’eVefteid4ot
Dear Sir or Madam,

I, David Dubin, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to

request that I, David Dubin, an owner and operator of small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) listed

below so that I, David Dubin, may operate my small ultra light weight unmanned aircraft system (UAS) commercially in airspace regulated by the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

As described herein I, David Dubin, am a licensed Realtor within the State of Tennessee and also an experienced fixed wing and powered 

parachute pilot (Certificate # 3444519). I have selected the DJI Phantom 3 UAS which is equipped with a built in camera with intent for aerial

 videography/cinematography to enhance academic community awareness for those individuals and companies unfamiliar with the geographical

layout of the East Tennessee area, and augment real estate listing videos; following exemption and approval by the FAA. Thereby enhancing 

their academic research experience for the East Tennessee area. 

See attached file(s)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                        4,165
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                 6,693
<ALLOWANCES>                    134
<INVENTORY>                   8,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             19,766
<PP&E>                       20,535
<DEPRECIATION>                5,883
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               51,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         8,182
<BONDS>                       8,552
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       0
<COMMON>                        628
<OTHER-SE>                   34,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 51,528
<SALES>                      24,862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             35,436
<CGS>                        17,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                23,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              654
<INCOME-PRETAX>               5,759
<INCOME-TAX>                  2,233
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           3,526
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                  3,526
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                  0.57
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4371 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4371

              For the relief of Melecio Andazola-Morales.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2017

Mr. Perlmutter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Melecio Andazola-Morales.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MELECIO ANDAZOLA-MORALES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Melecio Andazola-Morales 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Melecio Andazola-Morales enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
he shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, 
if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 
section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Melecio Andazola-Morales, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Melecio 
Andazola-Morales shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 
any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
19202

#### Hawaii Nurses' Ass'n v. Potter

Affirmed
#### Charles Caserta, Doing Business as Manhasset Realty, Plaintiff, *v.*Manhasset Real Estate, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

October 5, 1959.

*Molloy & Fletcher*for plaintiff.

*Robert Dana*for defendant.

*209Mario Pittoni, J.

Plaintiff seeks a temporary injunction in this action to restrain the use of a corporate name as unfairly competitive.

Plaintiff, since 1954, has carried on business as a real estate broker in Manhasset under the assumed business name of “ Manhasset Realty,” pursuant to a certificate filed by him and a license issued in that name by the Department of .State.

Defendant corporation, Manhasset Real Estate, Inc., was incorporated in April, 1959 and is doing business in the same community. It is claimed that plaintiff had no telephone listing when the defendant corporation was formed and no established office where the plaintiff’s name was displayed, and that he had also carried on business in Roslyn as Roslyn Realty.

Although it may well be that confusion has resulted because nf the similarity of names, there is not demonstrated by the record before the court that certainty of plaintiff’s success which would warrant a temporary injunction granting him all the relief he may obtain by a judgment; and in the court’s discretion the motion is denied.

The trial should be as soon as possible without, however, impeding others entitled to preferences.

This case should be noticed for trial and put on the November Special Term, Part II, Trial Calendar for trial in November, 1959, subject to the consent of the Justice then presiding.

Submit order.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rene SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-10473.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Julia Soto, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jill Thorpe, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Decided Sept. 22, 2005.

*228Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rene Soto appeals his 51-month sentence imposed following a jury trial conviction for illegal re-entry into the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We remand to the sentencing court to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 2005 WL 1964483 at *8 (9th Cir. Aug.17, 2005) (extending the *Ameline*remand to cases involving non-constitutional *Booker*error). Further, because the district court did not have the benefit of this Court’s decision in *Penuliar v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1037, 1045-46 (9th Cir.2005), we instruct the district court to consider it upon remand.

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-KSB
Universal Express, Inc.
File No. 0-18094



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


In connection with the Annual Report of Universal Express, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Altomare,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting 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.


Dated: September 28, 2005             By:  /s/ Richard Altomare
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Richard Altomare
                                           Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Chief Accounting Officer


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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 written 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.





                                       24
#### Kessler’s Estate.

*Wills*— Power *of sale*— Conversion.

Where a testator gives his estate to his executors in trust to pay the income to his wife for life, and after her death to pay the income of his brother for life and further provides that “for the better management and final distribution of my estate I authorize and empower (and after the decease of my wife and brother which ever shall last happen) order and direct my executors to sell and dispose of the whole or any part of my real estate,” the direction to sell after the death of the wife and brother, works a conversion of the real estate into money, and after the death of the wife and brother, it is properly distributed as such.

Argued March 24, 1919.

Appeal, No. 253, Jan. T., 1919, by John H. Heiss, from decree of O. C. Philadelphia Co., April T., 1904, No. 463, dismissing exceptions to adjudication in Estate of Thomas Kessler, deceased.

Before Brown, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Exceptions to adjudication by Gest, J.

From the record it appeared that Thomas H. Kessler died on May 2,1904, leaving a will and codicils, by which he devised and bequeathed his residuary estate to his executors in trust to pay the income to his wife, Clara E. Kessler, for the term of her life, and upon her decease to pay the income to his brother, George F. Kessler, if living, for the term of his life, and upon the decease of both his said wife and brother.

The fifth clause was as follows: “For the better management and final distribution of my estate I authorize and empower (and after the decease of my wife and brother which ever shall last happen order and direct) my said executors and the survivor of them to sell and dispose of the whole or any part of my real estate, &c.”

Clara E. Kessler, the widow, died May 23,1916, having been predeceased by George F. Kessler, the brother, who died February 3,1915, so that the trust has terminated.

*423The fund before the court includes only the sum awarded by the board of viewers for damages for taking ground of the decedent in the opening of Broad street through real estate of which he died seized.

The court distributed the fund as personal property.

Exceptions to the adjudication were dismissed. (See 28 Dist. Rep. 171.) John H. Heiss, a residuary claimant, appealed.

*Errors assigned*were in dismissing exceptions to the adjudication.

*Isaac Gordon Forster,*with him *Abraham Wernich*and *Rowland C. Evans,*for, appellant.

*Charles I. Cronin*and *Owen J. Roberts,*for appellee,

were not heard.

April 21, 1919:

Per Curiam,

During the continuance of the trust for the benefit of the widow and brother of the testator the sale of his real estate was within the discretion of his executors, but his unqualified direction was that upon the death of the survivor of them, they should sell it for the purpose of distribution. That this converted it into money is beyond question, and it was so properly distributed by the court below: Laird’s App., 85 Pa. 339; Dull’s Est., 222 Pa. 208.

Appeal dismissed and decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.