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

                WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
          PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Jeffersonville Bancorp (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies to his knowledge on the date hereof, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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, 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
Jeffersonville Bancorp and will be retained by Jeffersonville Bancorp and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange commission or its staff upon
request.

                                       /s/ Raymond Walter
                                       Raymond Walter
March 19, 2004                         President and Chief Executive Officer
# CI2022014EN.01000101.xml

| 12.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 14/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 14/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10521 – ORANGE / PUBLICIS / VOILA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 14 I/01)

On 9 December 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10521. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10521. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

TIRRELL WILLIAMS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 824 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
# C_2022069EN.01000101.xml

| 10.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10154 — BME/Saint-Gobain Distribution the Netherlands)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 69/01)

On 9 July 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10154. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10154. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF APPLIED ANALYTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.
RESTATED TO REFLECT THE ACQUISITION OF MEDICAL & TECHNICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          44,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,461
<ALLOWANCES>                                        73
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,557
<PP&E>                                          34,275
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,482
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,271
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,959
<SALES>                                         53,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,728
<CGS>                                           24,975
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (689)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,462)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,462)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4(d)

                            CERTIFICATE OF ADJUSTMENT
                             TO THE RIGHTS AGREEMENT
                 DATED AS OF JULY 24, 1996 ("RIGHTS AGREEMENT")
                              BETWEEN ALLETE, INC.
      (FORMERLY MINNESOTA POWER, INC. AND MINNESOTA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY)
                                     AND THE
                CORPORATE SECRETARY OF ALLETE, INC., RIGHTS AGENT


     The  undersigned,  Deborah A. Amberg,  Vice President,  General Counsel and
Secretary of ALLETE, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 12(a) of the Rights Agreement, that:

     (1) At 12:00  p.m.  Eastern  Time on  September  20,  2004 (the  "Effective
Date"), for shareholders of record on September 13, 2004, the Company engaged in
a one-for-three reverse stock split of the Company's common stock, no par value.

     (2) Pursuant to Section 11(n) of the Rights Agreement,  as of the Effective
Date,  each preferred  share purchase right (a "Right")  entitles the registered
holder,  until the  earlier  of the close of  business  on July 23,  2006 or the
redemption   or  exchange  of  the   Rights,   to  purchase   from  the  Company
one-and-a-half of one one-hundredth  (three  two-hundredth) of a share of Serial
Preferred Stock A, without par value, of the Company ("Preferred Stock"). The
Purchase Price (as defined in the Rights Agreement) remains $90.00.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned has hereunto signed her name this 21
day of September, 2004.

                                        ALLETE, INC.

                                        By:/s/ Deborah A. Amberg
                                           -------------------------------------
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT
C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N (C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2
, SU B P ART B

. SE04360A180
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF MERCER INTERNATIONAL INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     SHAREHOLDING
                                                                                    AT END OF YEAR
                                                                JURISDICTION       -----------------
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY(1)                                         OF INCORPORATION     DIRECT     INDIRECT
---------------------                                         ----------------     ------     ------
<S>                                                           <C>                  <C>        <C>
Dresden Papier AG...........................................    Germany             --        100.0%
Zellstoff-und Papierfabrik Rosenthal GmbH...................    Germany             --        100.0%
</TABLE>

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

(1) All the subsidiaries are doing business under their own names.

                                       47
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


All of the Company's subsidiaries are incorporated under the laws of the State
of Texas and operate under the name Oshman's unless otherwise indicated in
parentheses.  Each is qualified to do business in the state mentioned in its
name.  All are 100% owned by Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc.


Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Alabama*
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Arizona (also operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Arkansas 
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., California (also operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Colorado*
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Connecticut*
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Florida
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Georgia
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Hawaii (operates as Honsport)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Kansas (will operate as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Louisiana
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Michigan (will operate as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Minnesota (operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Missouri (operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Nevada
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., New Jersey (operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., New Mexico (also operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., New York*
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Ohio*
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Oklahoma (also operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Oregon*
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., South Carolina (operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Tennessee
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Texas (Delaware) (also operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Utah (operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman Sporting Goods Co., Washington (operates as SuperSports USA)
Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc. - Services (Delaware)
Oshman Ski Skool, Inc.*
J.S. Oshman and Co., Inc.
Oshitch Company*
The Best of Oshitch, District of Columbia*
Oshitch Company of Maryland, Inc.*
Oshitch Company of Virginia, Inc.*
Oshitch at Home, Inc.*
URAFAN Corp. (operates as URAFAN Corp.)*

__________
*  Indicates a currently inactive subsidiary.
# C_2022123EN.01003901.xml

| 18.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/39

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10541 – GOLDMAN SACHS / GRUPO VISABEIRA / CONSTRUCTEL VISABEIRA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 123/04)

On 4 March 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10541. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10541. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
**EXHIBIT  31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, V. Bryan Lawlis, certify that: 

        1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Aradigm Corporation;  

        2. Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a          material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 report;  

        3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information          included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial          condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and          for, the periods presented in this report;  

        4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for          establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in          Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  

        a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure  controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that  material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated  subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly  during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

        b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and  procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness  of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered  by this report based on such evaluation; and 

        c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control  over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent  fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially  affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

        5.          The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on          our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the          registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof           directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  

        a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation  of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize  and report financial information; and 

        b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees  who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over  financial reporting.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50514

CHARLES I. IKEKWERE,

Plaintiff−Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendant−Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 1:15-CV-418

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Ikekwere sued his former employer, the Treasury Department, 

under Title VII for race and national origin discrimination and hostile work 

environment, under the Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination, and 

under both for retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for 

the DoT, reasoning that Ikekwere had not shown he was qualified for the 

 

* 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

May 17, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50514 Document: 00514477480 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2018
No. 17-50514

2

position, that there was no evidence that race or mental disability motivated 

the decision to terminate him, and that there was no evidence of a hostile work 

environment or evidence that the adverse employment actions were motivated 

by Ikekwere’s EEO complaints. 

We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and pertinent portions 

of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We affirm, essentially 

for the reasons given by the district court in its compelling forty-two-page

Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment issued May 15, 2017. 

The district court correctly ruled, inter alia, that Ikekwere “fails to produce any evidence that he, himself, was qualified for the pay grade increase” 

that he was denied, especially given that, as the court noted, “[h]e does not 

dispute that he received a ‘fails’ rating on his performance evaluation.” The 

court properly concluded that “[o]n this record, [Ikekwere] “has failed to make 

out a prima facie case of failure to promote based on his race.” The court similarly dispelled Ikekwere’s claims for discriminatory discharge and hostile work 

environment. 

As for failure to accommodate, the court observed that Ikekwere showed 

an inability to perform his job even after being afforded accommodations. 

Regarding discriminatory discharge, the court opined that “there is no genuine 

issue of material fact that [Ikekwere] was not qualified for his job as a Revenue 

Agent. Finally, while finding a prima facie case of retaliation, at least at the 

summary judgment stage, the court correctly decided that the DoT “has 

produced several legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for [Ikekwere’s] 

termination,” including “poor performance and inappropriate behavior.”

There is no error. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-50514 Document: 00514477480 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2018
#### LEGG v. BLYTHE et al.

No. 3141.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Feb. 14, 1935.

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1935.

*383Ashworth, Crisp & Ashworth, of Kaufman, for appellant.

Ross Huffmaster, of Kaufman, and Bond & Porter, of Terrell, for appellees.

BIGGINS, Justice.

This is the second appeal in this case. For statement of the nature of the suit, reference is made to the opinion upon the former appeal. Legg v. Morrow (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S. W.(2d) 332. Nestor Morrow died subsequent to the rendition of the first judgment. After the reversal of such judgment, the appellees became parties plaintiff as executors of the estate of the deceased. The trial from which the present appeal is prosecuted was tried without a jury resulting in judgment against the appellant, Legg.

Two grounds of error are assigned: (1) Error in the exclusion of testimony of Valentine, the principal obligor of the note sued upon; (2) that the guaranty of Legg was without consideration.

The excluded testimony of Valentine was offered for the purpose of showing that the guaranty was without consideration. No point is presented as to the fact that such testimony was a transaction with the deceased within the meaning of article 3716, R. S., but it is urged Valentine was not a party to the suit upon the last trial. This insistence is predicated upon the fact that the first judgment against both defendants had become final against Valentine, who did not appeal.

The court did not err in ruling that Valentine was an incompetent witness under the statute. Coffin v. Loomis (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 511; Bilger v. Buchanan (Tex. Sup.) 6 S. W. 408.

The statute- applies to parties to the suit. The fact that the original judgment against Valentine became final did not operate to sever his connection with the suit. His status changed to that of a defendant in judgment rather than a mere party defendant, but he remained a party to the suit within the meaning of the statute.

Nor did the court err in excluding a portion of the testimony of Valentine developed upon cross-examination by counsel for plaintiff. The direct examination was over objection of counsel for plaintiff. The court permitted the development of the testimony reserving final ruling. By cross-examining the witness, plaintiff’s counsel did not waive his objections. Cathey v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co., 104 Tex. 39, 133 S. W. 417, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 103.

Another point made relating to a portion of the excluded testimony is that it was not subject to the objection stated. The error in excluding such admissible portion is harmless. It could not have affected the result.

With the testimony of Valentine excluded, the only circumstance tending to show want of consideration for the guaranty of Legg is the variance of two days in the dates of the extension agreement and the guaranty. This variance alone is insufficient to establish want of consideration for the guaranty. Legg v. Morrow (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 332.

Affirmed.