alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.3

NOVOCURE LIMITED

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 NovoCure Limited (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Asaf Danziger, Chief Executive Officer (Principal 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.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Asaf Danziger            
|Asaf Danziger                
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)

Date: March 1, 2017

A
signed original 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 on request.

This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of NovoCure Limited under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 306

To designate the month of May 1994 as ‘‘National Foster Care Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1994

Mr. ROTH introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the month of May 1994 as ‘‘National Foster

Care Month’’.

Whereas there are more than one-hundred thousand licensed

foster families in the United States who temporarily provide guidance, emotional support, food, shelter, and nurture to children who cannot remain in their own home;

Whereas foster parents devotedly and unselfishly open their

home and family life to children in need;

Whereas foster parents are a vital part in permanency planning to protect the best interests of a foster child;

Whereas foster parents work cooperatively with human service agencies and biological parents to strengthen family

life;
2

•HJ 306 IH

Whereas foster parents must have the commitment of the national, State and local communities in terms of funding,

support, and training; and

Whereas the National Foster Parent Association holds its annual training conference during the month of May 1994:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the month of May 1994 is designated as ‘‘National

4 Foster Care Month’’. The President is requested to issue

5 a proclamation calling on the people of the United States

6 to observe such month with appropriate ceremonies and

7 activities.

Æ
#### CLARE v. MARONEY et ux.

No. 5298.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Oct. 14, 1940.

Joe S. Moss and T. L. Price, both of Post, for appellant

R. L. Graves, of Brownfield, for appel-lees.

FOLLEY, Justice.

Appellees have filed a motion to advance the submission of this cause by virtue of the provisions of article 4662, R.C.S. of 1925, asserting that the appeal is from the dissolution of an interlocutory order.

The motion must be denied because it appears that the judgment appealed from is one upon the merits embracing only incidentally the dissolution of the interlocutory order. Such an appeal is not within the contemplation of article 4662 providing for the advancement of appeals. McAllen and Harlingen Local No. 688 v. Publix Theatres Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 1090; Early-Foster Co. v. Mid-Tex Mills et al., Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W. 1117; Commissioners’ Court of Henderson County v. Burk, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W. 793.

The motion is overruled.
(December 17, 1990)

#### Alexander A. Andreiev et al., Plaintiffs, v John W. Keller, Respondent, and George Rockman, Nonparty Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, George Rockman appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated June 16, 1989, as upon granting that branch of his motion which was for reargument of an order dated December 8, 1988, adhered to the determination directing him to turn over the defendant’s file to the defendant’s incoming attorney without holding a hearing to fix the amount of his retaining lien.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the appellant’s motion is granted to the extent that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

It is well settled that an attorney who has been discharged by his client without cause may invoke a retaining lien on the client’s papers and files in his possession. The attorney may generally not be compelled to surrender the files until an expedited hearing has been held to ascertain the amount of his fees *(see, Corby v Citibank,*143 AD2d 587; *Mint Factors v Cedar Tide Corp.,*133 AD2d 222; *Pileggi v Pileggi,*127 AD2d 751). An attorney’s retaining lien must be respected *(see, Artim v Artim,*109 AD2d 811).

In the instant case, no exigent circumstances were established to support the court’s order denying the motion by the appellant, who is the defendant’s outgoing attorney, for a hearing *(see, e.g, Rosen v Rosen,*97 AD2d 837). Moreover, contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, in light of the various lawsuits involving the defendant’s real estate, which is apparently his sole significant asset, we cannot agree that the appellant’s interests are otherwise adequately protected. Significantly, we note that he was not awarded a *529charging lien in lieu of his retaining lien *(compare, Rosen v Rosen, supra).*Accordingly, we remit this matter to the Supreme Court for the purpose of holding an expedited hearing to fix the amount due the appellant and the manner in which it should be paid *(see, Katsaros v Katsaros,*152 AD2d 539, 540; *Marshall v Katsaros,*152 AD2d 542; *Pileggi v Pileggi,*127 AD2d 751, *supra; Artim v Artim,*109 AD2d 811, *supra; Petrillo v Petrillo,*87 AD2d 607).

Furthermore, the defendant has made allegations which appear to charge that the appellant was discharged for cause. If it established that the appellant was discharged for cause, then the appellant would be entitled to neither a retaining lien nor compensation *(see, Teichner v W & J Holsteins,*64 NY2d 977). As this issue cannot be resolved on the instant record, it too should be considered at the hearing *(see, Katsaros v Katsaros,*152 AD2d 539, *supra; Williams v Hertz Corp.,*75 AD2d 766). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1



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 BWAY Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
December 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jean-Pierre M. Ergas, 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jean-Pierre M. Ergas                                     
|Jean-Pierre M. Ergas Chief Executive Officer February 4, 2003
Exhibit 23.1













CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of


Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc.


Salt Lake City, Utah








We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc. on Form S-8 No. 333-125732, of our report dated October 13, 2010, which is included in the Form 10-K for Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2010.





Our report covering the June 30, 2010 and 2009 consolidated financial statements of Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc. contains an explanatory paragraph relating to an uncertainty as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.







/s/ HJ &Associates, LLC
 HJ &Associates, LLC


Salt Lake City, Utah


October 13, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importation of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to section 1008 of the Controlled Substances Import and 
Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(I)), the Attorney General shall, prior to 
issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a 
controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a 
regulation under section 1002(a) authorizing the importation of such a 
substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk 
manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 1301.34 of Title 21, Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that on August 3, 
2000, West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corporation, 465 Industrial Way West, 
Eatontown, New Jersey 07724, made application to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration to be registered as an importer of dextropropoxyphene 
(9273), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
    The firm plans to import destropropoxyphene for the manufacture of 
controlled and noncontrolled products.
    Any manufacturer holding, or applying for, registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of this basic class of controlled substance may file 
written comments on or objections to the application described above 
and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such 
application in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.43 in such form as 
prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
    Any such comments, objections or requests for a hearing may be 
addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United 
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA 
Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than 
(30 days from publication).
    This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and 
independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), 
(e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice at 40 FR 43745-43746, 
September 23, 1975, all applicants for registration to import a basic 
class of any controlled substance in Schedule I or II are and will 
continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1301.34(a), (b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.

    Dated: November 6, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-30293 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### McDANIELS v. STATE.

No. 22708.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1944.

*949■ Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of a violation of the liquor laws of McCulloch County, and assessed a fine of $100.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record.

The facts substantiate the allegations in the complaint and information, with no attempt to deny or controvert the same.

The judgment is affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7085** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.

FREDERICK LYNN SELLERS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. ( 4:01

- cr
- 00058

- CWH

- 1 )

Submitted : September 9 , 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Frederick Lynn Sellers , Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence , South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not b inding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Frederick Lynn Sellers appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) . We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Sellers , No.

4:01

- cr
- 00058

- CWH

- 1 (D.S.C. July 6, 2015)

. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts a nd legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

## Water Analysis
Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 5/9/2012 Form REP-702 Rev. 0, 4/2012



### Sample Number: 122018-001 Date Collected:05/02/2012 08:15 Date Received:5/3/2012 

### Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 1.2 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 05/08/2012 15:22 

### Sample Number: 122018-002 Date Collected:05/02/2012 08:15 Date Received:5/3/2012 

## 2nd Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 10.4 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 05/08/2012 15:27 

### Sample Number: 122018-003 Date Collected:05/02/2012 08:15 Date Received:5/3/2012 

## 1st Stage Feed Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL ug/L Selenium, Se 311 0.5 DPC EPA 200.8 0.1 05/08/2012 15:32

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 122018 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1347 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 142

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1347

                          [Report No. 103-97]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

          To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National Park.

_______________________________________________________________________

                July 16 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

                       Reported without amendment

                                                       Calendar No. 142
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1347

                          [Report No. 103-97]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 1993

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                July 16 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

              Reported by Mr. Johnston, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
          To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National Park.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the boundary of 
Hot Springs National Park is modified as depicted on the map entitled 
``Proposed Boundary Map'', numbered 128/80015, and dated August 5, 
1985.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of PACE Health Management Systems, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John Pappajohn, Acting Chief Executive Officer and
Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§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 results of operations of the Company.







| | /s/ John Pappajohn
| | ------------------

John Pappajohn

Acting Chief Executive Officer and

Acting Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by PACE Health Management Systems, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
NO. 07-05-0174-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

MAY 4, 2006

______________________________

VINCENTE DOMINIQUE CHAVEZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 49,658-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a plea of not guilty, appellant Vincente Dominique Chavez was convicted

of intoxication manslaughter, enhanced by two prior felonies, and sentenced to life
1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2

confinement in a state jail facility. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1

brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the

record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can

be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967);

Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he

concludes the appeal is frivolous. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,

there is no error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy

of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without

merit. 

In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right to review

the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so. Appellant subsequently filed

a pro se response alleging the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support his

conviction and he received ineffective assistance of counsel during voir dire. The State did

not favor us with a brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel reviews each phase of the proceedings and concludes

that the record reveals no errors that would constitute grounds for reversal. We have
3

reviewed counsel’s brief in addition to the grounds raised by appellant. We have also

conducted an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any

other arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824

(Tex.Cr.App. 2005). We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the

appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice

Do not publish.
#### North Star Contracting Corp., Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 6, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 1981, after open competitive bidding, the plaintiff was awarded a contract by the City of New York for the removal and replacement of both outer roadways of the Williamsburg Bridge. The agreed-upon contract price was $10,609,326.60. The plaintiff’s work involved a good deal of welding. To prevent objects from falling on passing ships, the contract required the plaintiff to employ safety devices such as netting, asbestos tarpaulins, watchmen, and "other approved method^]”. In addition, other provisions of the contract provided that the city could, at any time, increase the safety of the work being performed and that the actual field conditions might require modifications in construction details.

After it became clear that asbestos materials would not be used because of objections by labor unions, and other devices proved to be unsatisfactory, the parties agreed that the plaintiffs employees would stop all welding work as ships passed.

On February 26, 1982, after the implementation of this safety procedure, an empty oil barge caught fire and exploded while passing under the bridge. The National Transportation Safety Board placed partial blame on both the plaintiff, for failing to prevent hot slag from falling from the bridge, and the city, for failing to take effective action against the plaintiff to prevent such material from falling from the bridge. As a result of this incident, a new safety procedure was implemented whereby the plaintiff would now stop all work on the bridge as ships passed. Even though the plaintiff completed the project ahead of schedule, it brought this contract action alleging, in its fourth cause of action, that the delays caused *439by this new safety procedure were a breach of contract causing it damages in excess of $1 million.

We agree with the Supreme Court that because of the various provisions of the contract noted above, the delays alleged by the plaintiff were well within the contemplation of the parties, and thus, there is no issue of fact as to whether the city unreasonably interfered with the plaintiffs performance of the contract. Accordingly, partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action was appropriate *(see generally, Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v City of New York,*67 NY2d 297). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.