alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND CHIEF

FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION
906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
RedHill Biopharma Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officer's 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Dated: March 4, 2013





|/s/
        Dror Ben-Asher                           
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Dror Ben-Asher                                       
|Chief Executive Officer                              
|                                                     
|/s/
        Ori Shilo                                
|Ori Shilo                                            
|Deputy Chief Executive Officer Finance and Operations
##### 



Natural Resource Partners L.P. 
601 Jefferson St., Suite 3600, Houston, TX 77002
    
    (NRP LOGO)
 NEWS RELEASE
 Natural Resource Partners L.P.
Completes Two-for-One Unit Split and
Increases Distribution
 HOUSTON, April 19, 2007 Natural Resource Partners L.P. (NYSE:NRP) and (NYSE:NSP)
   khager@nrplp.com http://www.nrplp.com
 -end-
 07-11
August 10, 2011

Mr. Stephen M. Schiller Colonel, US Army (Retired)

Senior Vice President Training & Security Group International, Inc.

P.O. Box 2603 Weatherford, TX 76086

Dear Mr. Schiller:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 91.205(h) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your May 24, 2011, exemption request on behalf of Training & Security Group International, Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0685), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all the following:

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Section 91.205(h) satisfies safety issues by requiring instruments, equipment and lighting modifications for night vision goggl es (NVG) operations. Your request only addresses the ability of the pilot and associated training needed to operate the aircraft while using night vision goggles (NVG). Ho w do you intend to meet the instrument, equipment and lighting requirements of § 91.205(h)?

 The field approval process is not authorized for aircraft lighting modifications for the purpose of NVG operations. Aircraft ligh ting modifications for NVG operation is a major change to the aircraft type design and affects the operation of the aircraft. The aircraft lighting system as a whole is aff ected by the modification and is categorized as a night vision imaging system. How do you intend to address operating limitations and information necessary for safe operation? A supplemental type certificate would be required for lighting modifications for the purpose of NVG operations.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you m ust send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brenda D. Courtney Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
Opinion issued February 25, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00687-CV

———————————

TERRY FOX, Appellant

V.

TARA PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 19-CCV-065277

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Terry Fox, has filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Ten days have passed with no response. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 10.3(a). No opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c).
2

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Hightower.
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Benefits Administration Letter 

 

Number: 05 - 401 Date: May 16, 2005 

Subject: Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program: Opportunity for Total 

Health Care - Plan Code N2 and Total Health Choice – Plan Code 4A enrollees to 

change health plans 

Total Health Care – Plan Code N2 and Total Health Choice – Plan Code 4A, will cease participation in 

the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program effective July 18 and July 19, 2005, 

respectively. 

Enrollees in both plans must change to another participating plan in order to continue to receive 

benefits under the FEHB Program. Enrollees who do not change plans will have no health 

benefits for the remainder of the 2005 benefit year. The opportunity to change enrollment will 

begin immediately and continue through July 9, 2005. The effective date of all enrollment changes 

will be the beginning pay period in which the enrollee makes the change, but no later than July 1 for 

annuitants and the last pay period in July 2005 for employees. Agencies may accept belated 

enrollment changes, however, the effective date of all enrollments accepted after July 9, 2005 must be 

effective the last full pay period in July for employees and July 1, 2005 for annuitants. Effective dates 

for agencies that have pay periods other than bi-weekly pay periods must be no later than July 1, 2005. 

The Plans will send letters to enrollees advising them of this opportunity to change enrollment. We 

have attached copies of the letters for your information. 

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 

Attachments 

 Frank D. Titus 

 Assistant Director 

 for Insurance Services
Order entered November 14, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00397-CR

No. 05-13-00399-CR

No. 05-13-00406-CR

No. 05-13-00407-CR

OCTAVIOUS JAMES JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-20340-W, F08-20341-W, F12-70580-W, F12-70581-W

ORDER

In his brief, appellant raises issues related to the costs assessed against him. The records, 

however, do not contain cost bills or other documents with itemized lists of costs assessed in the 

cases.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, supplemental clerk’s records containing detailed itemizations of 

the costs assessed in these cases, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court 

appointed attorney fees. In accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.001, 

the cost bills shall be signed by the officer who charged the costs or the officer who is entitled to 
receive payment for the costs. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s records include 

documents explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350


(SECTION
906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In
connection with the Annual Report of, MIP Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeff Lamberson,
President, Principal Accounting Officer and Director, and I, Gary McDonald,
Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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:
June 3, 2009




By:
            /s/Jeff
      Lamberson
            
            /s/Gary
      MacDonaldJeff
      Lamberson
              President,
      Principal Accounting Officer and Director
            Gary
      MacDonald
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Director
EX-33.10
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Document Custody
1015 10th Avenue Southeast
Minneapolis, MN 55414


ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA


Management of the Document Custody Section of the Corporate Trust Services
division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Company") is
responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Management has determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regard
to the servicing platform for the period as follows:

Platform:
Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January
1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any
such securities issued by any agency or instrumentality of the U.S. government
(other than the Federal Deposit Insurance Company) or any government sponsored
entity (the "Platform").


Period:  As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2012 (the "Period").

Applicable Servicing Criteria:

The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and
1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities performed by the Company with
respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). Management of
the Company has determined that all other servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform.


With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company's management provides
the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

1. The Company's management is responsible for assessing the Company compliance
with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

2. The Company management has assessed the Company compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria. In performing this assessment, management used
the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph
(d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.

3. Based on such assessment as of and for the Period, the Company has complied,
in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report with respect to management's assertion of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.


WELLS FARGO BANK, National Association

By:    /s/ Shari Gillund
       Shari L. Gillund

Title: Senior Vice President

Dated: February 15, 2013


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
FIRST
AMENDMENT


TO


LOAN AND
SECURITY AGREEMENT




This First Amendment to Loan &
Security Agreement is entered into as of August 3, 2010 (the “Amendment”) by and
between PENINSULA BANK BUSINESS FUNDING, a division of THE PRIVATE BANK OF THE
PENINSULA (“Bank”) and OPTEX SYSTEMS, INC. (“Borrower”)




RECITALS




Borrower and Bank are parties to that
certain Loan & Security Agreement dated March 4, 2010 as amended from time
to time (the “Agreement”).  The parties desire to amend the Agreement in
accordance with the terms of this Amendment.





NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as
follows:





1.
            Section
      6.8(c) and 6.8(d) EBITDA are amended in
      their entirety to read as follows:





(c)
      as of the last day of Borrower’s fourth fiscal quarter ending October 2,
      2010, twenty thousand dollars ($20,000); and (d) as of the last day of
      Borrower’s first fiscal quarter ending January 2, 2011, two hundred
      thousand dollars ($200,000).





2. 
          Unless otherwise defined, all initially
capitalized terms in this Amendment shall be as defined in the Agreement. 
The Agreement, as amended hereby, shall remain in full force and effect in
accordance with its terms.  Except as expressly set forth herein, the
execution, delivery, and performance of this Amendment shall not operate as a
waiver of, or as an amendment of, any right, power, or remedy of Bank under the
Agreement, as in effect prior to the date hereof, or the Security
Agreement.





3. 
         This Amendment may be executed in any number
of counterparts and by different parties on separate counterparts, each of
which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original, and all
of which, when taken together, shall constitute but one and the same
Amendment.  In the event that any signature is delivered by facsimile
transmission or by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file, such signature
shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose
behalf such signature is executed) with the same force and effect as if such
facsimile or “.pdf” signature page were an original thereof. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Borrower shall deliver all original signed
documents requested by Bank no later than ten (10) Business Days following the
date of this Amendment.




5.           
As a condition to the effectiveness of this Amendment, Bank shall have received,
in form and substance satisfactory to Bank, the following:




(a) this
Amendment, duly executed by Borrower.




(b) an
amendment fee of $5,000, plus all Bank Expenses incurred through the date of
this Amendment; and




(c) such
other documents, and completion of such other matters, as Bank may reasonably
deem necessary or appropriate.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
have executed this Amendment as of the first date above written.




OPTEX
      SYSTEMS, INC.By:
                                /s/ Karen
      HawkinsKaren
      HawkinsTitle:PENINSULA
      BANK BUSINESS FUNDING, A DIVISION
                                  OF
      THE PRIVATE BANK OF THE PENINSULABy:Title:
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 on Form 10-Q of Best EnergyServices, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry Hargrave, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the
purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
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/
      Larry HargraveLarry
      HargravePresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember
      22, 2008
#### A. Elgart *&*Sons, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Peoples Express Co., Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 30, 1958.

*500*Joseph Fennelly, Jr.,*and *Robert J. Lawton*for appellant.

*Morton E. Kiel*for respondent.

*Per Curiam,.*

The plaintiff shipper declared a released value of the property of $50. Such released value, however, could only apply to that property concerning which the defendant carrier had been authorized to establish and maintain rates dependent upon value. The defendant did not petition for and the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission did not authorize it to establish and maintain rates for clothing made of wool. The released rates order specifically limits the classification of the merchandise on which the defendant can release liability to celanese and rayon fibres, yarns and fabrics, silk, mixtures of the foregoing and finished and unfinished products thereof. When, therefore, the defendant accepted the shipment of the wool clothing with a released value, it deviated from the order of the commission and from its filed tariffs established under the authority of that order. The contract of carriage in the circumstances was invalid and unenforcible. The plaintiff, moreover, is not estopped, having accepted the benefit of the lower rate, for any such limitation of liability “ without respect to the manner or form in which it is sought to be made is declared to be unlawful and void”. (U. S. Code, tit. 49, § 20, subd. [11]; *New York & Honduras Rosario Min. Co.*v. *Riddle Airlines,*3 A D 2d 457.)

The judgment should be modified by increasing the recovery to the sum of $600, with interest and costs, and as modified affirmed, with $25 costs to appellant.

Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment modified, accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Quture International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry S. Hollander, Principal
Accounting Officer, 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



1. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



| | /s/ Barry S. Hollander      
| | ----------------------------
| | Barry S. Hollander          
| | Principal Accounting Officer
| | September 19, 2012          



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Mediswipe, Inc. and will be retained by Mediswipe, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John G. CHAMPION et al., Appellants, v. CAMERON COUNTY et al., Appellees.

No. 9441.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 24, 1934.

Davenport & Ransome, of Brownsville, for appellants.

Charles 0. Bowie, of San Benito, for appel-lees.. .

SMITH, Justice.

In this case Cameron county recovered judgment for the use and benefit of certain school districts against John G. Champion and others as sureties upon the bonds of the Texas Bank & Trust Company, in its capacity as official depository of said school districts. The depository failed, resulting in the loss of balances of deposits of public funds belonging to the districts, in the aggregate sum of $3,269.62. The county reeovéred of the sureties the amount of said balances, together with 6 per cent, interest thereon from the date of the default, and the sureties have appealed.

The appeal involves the one question decided in the companion case of John G. Champion et al. v.' Cameron County et al., 75 S.W. (2d) 465, this day handed down by this court, and for the reasons stated in that opinion the judgment of the trial court herein will be reformed so qs to decree recovery in favor of appellees against appellants in the sum of $3,269.62, together with interest, thereon at the rate of 1.77 per cent, per annum from December 13, 1932, until the date of said judgment, the whole amount to bear interest thereafter at the rate of 6 per cent, per an-num until paid.

Reformed and affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.A.J.F., A

MINOR

PETITION OF: K.T., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 1 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.T.F. JR., A

MINOR

PETITION OF: K.T., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 2 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.A.

- M.T., A

MINOR

PETITION OF: K.T., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 3 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of January, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned does hereby certify that:

The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |                                                      
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | /s/ David L. Calhoun                                 
|Date: July 29, 2010 |  | David L. Calhoun                                     
|                    |  | Chairman, Executive Board and Chief Executive Officer



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                    |  | /s/ Brian J. West      
|Date: July 29, 2010 |  | Brian J. West          
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer