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



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



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Warren P. Levy, Chief Executive 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:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial position and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Warren P. Levy     
|Warren P. Levy         
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 17, 2004           



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2015356EN.01000901.xml

| 28.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 356/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/9

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2015/C 356/07)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

To celebrate thirty years of the EU flag, euro-area Finance Ministers decided that euro-area Member States would strike a 2-euro commemorative coin using a common design on the national side. Euro-area citizens and residents have selected by public web-voting the winning design. Voters had a choice of five designs, which had been pre-selected by a professional jury following a design competition among European Mints, and they choose the design created by Mr Georgios Stamatopoulos, professional designer at the Bank of Greece.

Issuing country
  : Luxembourg

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : The 30th anniversary of the EU flag

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The designs shows the EU flag as a symbol that unites people and cultures with shared visions and ideals for a better common future. Twelve stars that morph into human figures are embracing the birth of a new Europe. At the top right, in semi-circle, are the issuing country ‘LËTZEBUERG’ and the years ‘1985-2015’. In between the flag and the years is the mint master mark. At the bottom right are the initials of the artist (Georgios Stamatopoulos).

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : November 2015

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
# C_2014256EN.01000501.xml

| 7.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 August 2014

2014/C 256/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3345 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,58 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4557 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79285 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2454 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2152 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4105 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,834 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 316,06 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2045 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4420 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8874 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4329 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4643 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3414 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5795 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6681 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 381,98 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,3597 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2245 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6463 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 749,29 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2704 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,662 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,3508 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,060 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0584 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7502 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 82,0450 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3345

JPY

Japanese yen

136,58

DKK

Danish krone

7,4557

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79285

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2454

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2152

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4105

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,834

HUF

Hungarian forint

316,06

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2045

RON

Romanian leu

4,4420

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8874

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4329

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4643

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3414

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5795

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6681

KRW

South Korean won

1 381,98

ZAR

South African rand

14,3597

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2245

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6463

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 749,29

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2704

PHP

Philippine peso

58,662

RUB

Russian rouble

48,3508

THB

Thai baht

43,060

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0584

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7502

INR

Indian rupee

82,0450

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2015057EN.01000501.xml

| 17.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 February 2015

(2015/C 57/06)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1408 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,26 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4440 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,74210 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5838 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0626 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,6035 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,638 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,91 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1832 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4452 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7919 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4669 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4206 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8500 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5193 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5481 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 257,23 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,2698 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1292 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,7140 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 524,29 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0846 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,393 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,4700 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,181 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2336 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9608 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,9736 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1408

JPY

Japanese yen

135,26

DKK

Danish krone

7,4440

GBP

Pound sterling

0,74210

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5838

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0626

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,6035

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,638

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,91

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1832

RON

Romanian leu

4,4452

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7919

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4669

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4206

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8500

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5193

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5481

KRW

South Korean won

1 257,23

ZAR

South African rand

13,2698

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1292

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,7140

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 524,29

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0846

PHP

Philippine peso

50,393

RUB

Russian rouble

71,4700

THB

Thai baht

37,181

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2336

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9608

INR

Indian rupee

70,9736

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 10.23


Emergent Group Inc.


10939 Pendleton Street


Sun Valley, CA 91352


Tel: 818-394-2800








March 4, 2010














BJH Management, LLC


145 Huguenot Street


Suite 405


New Rochelle, NY 10801





Dear Mr. Haber:





Please be advised that we have extended your Service Agreement for an additional period of three years through the close of business on June 30, 2013.  All other terms remain unamended and in full force and effect.  Kindly sign below indicating your acceptance of same.




Very truly yours,



EMERGENT GROUP INC.By:
/s/ William M. McKayWilliam McKay, Chief Financial Officer


Agreed to and accepted by:





BJH MANAGEMENT, LLC





By:  /s/ Bruce J. Haber


Bruce J. Haber, President
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 54 (Friday, March 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15017-15018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which

[[Page 15018]]

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel, Clinical Coordination Center (2243).
    Date: April 21, 2015.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of 
Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 
Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-
9550, (301) 435-1439, lf33c.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug 
Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 13, 2015.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-06348 Filed 3-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Oscar Ortega, Roggie Law, Steven Murdock, and Don Egdorf v. Alan 

Pean

Appellate case number: 01-18-00249-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-43519

Trial court: 127th District Court of Harris County

The motion for reconsideration en banc is denied. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Peter Kelly_______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Kelly, Goodman, Landau, 

Hightower, Countiss, and Adams.

Date: __December 3, 2020_____
Unassociated Document


 



DESCRIPTION OF 2011 FISCAL YEAR BONUS PLAN







Our Fiscal 2011 Bonus Plan provided our executive officers and management level employees, other than our CEO, with the opportunity to obtain, in addition to their base salary, an annual cash bonus that is dependent upon the Company achieving stated goals for the year in question.   Although the Fiscal 2011 Bonus Plan left open the possibility that individual goals and objectives could contribute to bonus awards under the plan, no such individual goals or objectives were specifically communicated.  As a result, awards under the plan were not dependent on achievement of individual goals. The Fiscal 2011 Bonus Plan provided that each of our eligible employees has a target bonus delineated as a percentage of base salary.







The target bonus is based on a number of performance criteria and each is assigned a weighting.  Each achievement level of a criterion is associated with a payout percentage as set forth in the following table:








	
Achievement Level

	
90.0-99.99%

	
100-109.99%

	
110-124.99%

	
125% and over


	
Payout Percentage

	
50%

	
100%

	
125%

	
150%












The maximum payout percentage is 150%.  As a result, the maximum payment to a participant under the Fiscal 2011 Bonus Plan is determined by multiplying the employee’s target percentage of Base Salary by 150%.







Depending on the achievement level of a criterion the criterion’s weighting from the table below is multiplied by the payout percentage associated with the achievement level for the criterion and the result is further multiplied by the bonus salary percentage and that result is further multiplied by salary to determine the dollar contribution to bonus of the criterion.  Summing up the dollar contributions of all the criteria gives the bonus amount.







 The weightings, the target for Fiscal Year 2011 are set forth below:













	  	
Direct Reports to CEO

	
Other


	
Revenue

	
35%

	
25%


	
EBITDA (adjusted for plan)

	
35%

	
25%


	
Service Level (percentage of units shipped within 72 hours of promised ship date)

	
20%

	
30%


	
Quality Compliance (percentage of batches manufactured with no deviation from specification)

	
5%

	
10%


	
Regulatory Compliance (Number of FDA 483 Observations)

	
5%

	
10%
Production (MT) 2005 20062007 20082009 20102011 2012 2013

CFCs 43 37.5 30.2 19.2 11.2 Carbon Tetrachloride 6.7 8.9 7.3 3.3 4.1 6.4 3.2 6.7 Methyl Chloroform 3.81 HBFCs 0.01 Total 4348.02 39.1 26.5 3.3 15.3 6.4 3.2 6.7

Consumption (MT) CFCs 43 37.5 30.2 19.2 11.2 Carbon Tetrachloride 6.7 8.9 7.3 3.3 4.1 6.4 3.2 5.4 Methyl Chloroform 4.11 HBFCs 0.01 Total 4348.32 39.1 26.5 3.3 15.3 6.4 3.2 5.4 Source: http://ozone.unep.org/en/ods_data_access_centre/ Production and consumption of ODS for the Laboratory Use Exemption in the United States
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6856

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MANOJ KUMAR JHA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. 

(1:12-cr-00595-ELH-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Manoj Kumar Jha, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Manoj Kumar Jha appeals from the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a new trial and denying his motion for 

reconsideration of the order granting the Government an extension 

of time to file a response. We have reviewed the record and find 

no abuse of discretion by the district court and no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Jha, No. 1:12-cr-00595-ELH-1 (D. 

Md. June 13, 2016). We deny Jha’s motion for sanctions and his 

motion to vacate this court’s decision in United States v. Jha, 

613 F. App’x 212 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-4717). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2015355EN.01000101.xml

| 27.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7625 — ADM/AOR)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 355/01)

On 7 September 2015, 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:

1

| — | 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 32015M7625. 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 32015M7625. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION January 1 8 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) FROM: Angela Cullen TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on Tue s day , January 1 8 , 2011 b etween EMA , NHTSA and EPA and included the following individuals: EMA: Tim Blubaugh - EMA, Andrea Brown - Navistar, Dave Kayes – Daimler, Don Keski - Hy nnila - Detroit Diesel, Dan Kieffer

– PACCAR, Rich Mihelic - Daimler, Josef Tarp

– PACCAR, Mike Sorrells - Volvo NHTSA/DOT: Kevin Greene , Coralie Cooper EPA: By ron Bunker , C heryl By

num, Sam Waltzer, Arvon Mitcham , and Angela Cullen The discussion focused on reference test method for aerodyn amic determination and standardized trailers.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STANLEY D. ARMSTRONG, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (4:11-cr-00005-FL-1; 4:16-cv-00005-FL)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley D. Armstrong, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley D. Armstrong, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate 

both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Armstrong has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2014362EN.01000402.xml

| 14.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7311 — MOL/ENI Česká/ENI Romania/ENI Slovensko)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 362/03

On 24 September 2014, 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 the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | 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 32014M7311. 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 32014M7311. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---