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

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed
incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any filings.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, for the second quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of the
undersigned officers of Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his respective knowledge:

(1) the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the second quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (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 Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated for the periods presented therein.

Date: July 24, 2009

/s/ Richard K. WilliamsRichard K. Williams Chief Executive Officer


Date: July 24, 2009

/s/ Brian R. McDonaldBrian R. McDonald Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of the above certification has been provided to Advanced Analogic
Technologies Incorporated and will be retained by Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016266EN.01000301.xml

| 22.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 July 2016

(2016/C 266/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1015 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 117,05 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4390 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83595 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4736 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0872 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3541 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,025 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,61 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3692 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4686 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3841 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4710 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4376 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5426 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5789 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4931 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 253,58 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,7433 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3505 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4845 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 448,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4860 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,975 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,3897 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,564 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5804 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,5428 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,0373 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1015

JPY

Japanese yen

117,05

DKK

Danish krone

7,4390

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83595

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4736

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0872

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3541

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,025

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,61

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3692

RON

Romanian leu

4,4686

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3841

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4710

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4376

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5426

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5789

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4931

KRW

South Korean won

1 253,58

ZAR

South African rand

15,7433

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3505

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4845

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 448,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4860

PHP

Philippine peso

51,975

RUB

Russian rouble

70,3897

THB

Thai baht

38,564

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5804

MXN

Mexican peso

20,5428

INR

Indian rupee

74,0373

---

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

1

Source

---
Back
      to 10-K





Exhibit
      23.1




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**






We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.’s
      333-87944, 333-27973 and 333-128959 of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc.
      on
      Form S-8 of our report dated August 23, 2006, relating to the consolidated
      financial statements of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc, appearing in this
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. for the
      year
      ended May 31, 2006.





We
      also consent to reference to us under “Item 6. Selected Consolidated Financial
      and Operating Data” in Form 10-K.





Our
      audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
      aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedule of Schiff
      Nutrition International, Inc., listed in Item 15. This financial statement
      schedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility
      is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial
      statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated
      financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects
      the information set forth therein.









***DELOITTE
      & TOUCHE LLP***




Salt
      Lake City, Utah


August
      23, 2006
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

The State of Texas,

 State,

v.

George Frank Diamos, III,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-16-00322-CR

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20130D05419)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the State’s emergency motion to stay proceedings pending 

resolution of the State’s appeal from the trial court’s order suppressing evidence. According to 

the motion, the underlying case is set for a jury trial at 8:30 a.m. on December 9, 2016. The 

State is entitled to a stay in the proceedings pursuant to Article 44.01(e) of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 44.01(e). Accordingly, the State’s 

motion is GRANTED. With the exception of matters related to bail, the trial court is directed to 

stay all proceedings in cause number 20130D05419 pending resolution of this appeal or further 

order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of December, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

S E C O N D D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

CHIEF JUSTICE

 TERRIE LIVINGSTON

JUSTICES

 LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

 ANNE GARDNER

 SUE WALKER

 BILL MEIER

 LEE GABRIEL

 BONNIE SUDDERTH

TIM CURRY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER

401 W. BELKNAP, SUITE 9000

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76196-0211

TEL: (817) 884-1900

FAX: (817) 884-1932

www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa

CLERK 

 DEBRA SPISAK

CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

 LISA M. WEST

GENERAL COUNSEL

 CLARISSA HODGES

December 1, 2016

Hon. David L. Evans

Regional Presiding Judge

Tom Vandergriff Civil Courts Bldg.

100 N. Calhoun St., 2nd Floor

Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Debra A. Windsor

Assistant District Attorney

401 W. Belknap St.

Fort Worth, TX 76196-0201

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Deborah Nekhom

Judge, County Criminal Court No. 4

Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center

Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Criminal County Clerk, Tarrant County

Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center

401 W. Belknap St., 2nd Floor

Fort Worth, TX 76196-4401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Barry G. Johnson

2821 E. Lancaster

Fort Worth, TX 76103

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 02-16-00397-CR, 02-16-00398-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 1439829, 1439830

Style: Anthony David Galvan

v.

The State of Texas

Today the Second Court of Appeals issued an opinion and judgment in the

above-referenced cause. 

Copies of the opinion and judgment are attached and can also be viewed on our

Court’s webpage at: http://www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa.

Respectfully yours,

DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK

FILE COPY
EXHIBIT
32.1.








Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I, Ed
Bailey, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer, of LightTouch
Vein & Laser, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2008 of the Registrant,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"):





(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
Registrant.








Dated:  August
18,
2008                                                                           By:  /s/ Ed
Bailey


Ed Bailey


Chief Executive Officer
and Principal Accounting


Officer





* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. and will be retained by LightTouch
Vein & Laser, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2942 

To reauthorize the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage 

Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 6, 2021 

Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Crossroads of the American Revolution 

National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Crossroads of the 

5 American Revolution National Heritage Area Act of 

6 2021’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF FUNDING LIMITATION; REAUTHOR8 IZATION. 

9 (a) REMOVAL OF FUNDING LIMITATION.—Section 

10 297G(a) of the National Heritage Areas Act of 2006 (54 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2942 IS

1 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 109–338, 120 Stat. 

2 1844) is amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro4 priated to carry out this subtitle $1,000,000 for each fiscal 

5 year.’’. 

6 (b) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 297H of the Na7 tional Heritage Areas Act of 2006 (54 U.S.C. 320101 

8 note; Public Law 109–338, 120 Stat. 1844) is amended 

9 by striking ‘‘terminates on the date that is 15 years after 

10 the date of enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘termi11 nates on September 30, 2036’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20817 Conference Calendar

JAMES MOSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KATTY ANTOINE, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CV-1416

-------------------- February 19, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Mosley, Texas prisoner #1023626, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In his complaint, he alleged that Katty Antoine used racial slurs and epithets, in violation of his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. We decline to consider Mosley’s untimely argument that the district court judge should have recused himself. See Clay v. Allen , 242 F.3d 679, 681 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Sanford , 157 F.3d 987, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1998).No. 02-20817 -2- Mosley’s claim that the district court erred in failing to give him notice of the court’s intention to dismiss his complaint and erred in failing to give him an opportunity to amend his complaint is also without merit. Mosley has not alleged an arguable constitutional claim nor has he asserted any further facts that would have sustained an arguable claim. See Graves v. Hampton , 1 F.3d 315, 319-20 (5th Cir. 1994). Finally, Mosley’s allegations of racial slurs and derogatory epithets do not state a cognizable civil rights claim. Bender v. Brumley , 1 F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993). Mosley has alleged only a de minimis physical injury, which is not sufficient to sustain an Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Mosley’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s dismissal of Mosley’s complaint both count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Mosley is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates another “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.
..

# ._-

-., '.' . _. ' . ,----..-.. ~.,---"-_.'c , =- -'- -".,- ' 0'-'. ... . n----- '

### -----------
"c-::- 

### -: ----- u
Exhibit 13.1

                               ASTRIS ENERGI INC.

    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 Astris Energi, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Liik, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Michael Liik
-------------------------------------
Michael Liik
President and Chief Executive Officer
October 19, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2906 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2906

 To add certain items to the list of high priority goods and services 
  for analyses, recommendations, and actions related to sourcing and 
                          industrial capacity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 30, 2021

  Mr. Rounds introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To add certain items to the list of high priority goods and services 
  for analyses, recommendations, and actions related to sourcing and 
                          industrial capacity.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defense Domestic Producers Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION OF CERTAIN ITEMS TO LIST OF HIGH PRIORITY GOODS AND 
              SERVICES FOR ANALYSES, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ACTIONS 
              RELATED TO SOURCING AND INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY.

    Section 849 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A)--
                    (A) by redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) 
                as clauses (iii), (iv), and (v), respectively; and
                    (B) by inserting after clause (i) the following new 
                clause:
                            ``(ii) producers in the United States;''; 
                        and
            (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following 
        new paragraphs:
            ``(14) Beef products born, raised, and slaughtered in the 
        United States.
            ``(15) Molybdenum and molybdenum alloys.
            ``(16) Optical transmission equipment, including optical 
        fiber and cable equipment.
            ``(17) Armor on tactical ground vehicles.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41035

Summary Calendar

JOSE FIDENCIO GARZA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WARDEN GARY CURRIE; SERGEANT MAYER; LIEUTENANT AMBRIZ,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CV-155

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Fidencio Garza, Texas prisoner # 01576511, appeals the dismissal 

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 

(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted. The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint as 

his claims lacked an arguable basis in law or contained insufficient factual 

matter to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

 

* 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

December 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41035 Document: 00513788804 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2016
No. 15-41035

2

678 (2009); Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009); Black v. 

Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998). The judgment is AFFIRMED. The 

motions for discovery of evidence, disqualification and summary judgment, and 

expedited consideration are DENIED.

The dismissal of Garza’s § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted counts as a strike under § 1915(g). 

See § 1915(g); Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015); Adepegba 

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Garza is WARNED that if 

he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed in forma 

pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained 

in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

See § 1915(g).

 Case: 15-41035 Document: 00513788804 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2016
### Faulk, Scott (OST)

From: 

### Sent: To: Subject:

Dear Mr. Faulk, tim richmond <kalaupapatim@hotmail.com> Wednesday, March 12, 2014 5:09 PM Faulk, Scott (OST) EAS Contract for Kalaupapa, HI**~** .. ·!-**~**



### ..:·:·.i;

I am aworker and resident of Kalaupapa and rely on the air service to and from Kalaupapa. Makani Kai has been paramount in providing exceptional service and aloha tothe Staffand Patients that live and work here. They have You recently received a letterfrom the Mayorof Maui Co. supporting Mokulele Airlines as receiving the contract. Iwill respectfully state the he knows little or nothing aboutthe needs and wants of Kalaupapa. Mokulele Airlines is afine carrier it isjust notwho we feel will service Kalaupapa and our needs the best. It is my impression thatthe EAS is here to provide a needed service to acommunitythat has no otheroptions to get out except flying or hiking. Our needs in Kalaupapa have nothing to do with Maui. Our needs have to do with frequent and affordable air service to Honolulu and Topside Molokai. Makani Kai has worked with us to provide the schedule that would be best for us and works forthem. They have given discounted fares tothe Patients and Residents which helps us all, as some need to fly frequently. It seems that the wants and needs ofthe Communitythat is receiving the EAS should outweigh the wants ofsomeone who does not even come to Kalaupapa. I hope thatyou will consider what

### we, as a community, want overwhat a politician that is not involved with Kalaupapa wants.

Thank-You,

Tim Richmond Food Service Supervisor Kalaupapa Settlement 808-567-6925

1
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0643. ODOLPH WRIGHT v. GATEWAY OF EAST POINT, LP.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following

an adverse ruling, Odolph Wright appealed to the superior court, which entered a

directed verdict for Gateway of East Point, LP and dismissed Wright’s appeal on

March 20, 2014. Wright then filed his notice of appeal on April 4, 2014. We lack

jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, Wright failed to file an application for discretionary appeal as required. 

“[A]ppeals from decisions of the superior courtsreviewing decisions of lower courts

by certiorari or de novo proceedingsshall be by application for discretionary appeal.” 

Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003) (punctuation

omitted); see also OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). Because Wright did not follow the proper

procedure for requesting appellate review in this case, we lack jurisdiction over this

appeal. 

Second, Wright’s appeal is untimely. Generally, a notice of appeal must be

filed within 30 days of entry of the decision or judgment sought to be appealed. See

OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The underlying subject matter of an appeal, however, controls

over the relief sought in determining the proper appellate procedure. See Rebich v.

Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-468 (448 SE2d 192) (1994). The underlying subject matter

here is a dispossessory judgment. Under OCGA § 44-7-56, an appeal from a

dispossessory judgment must be filed within seven days of the date the judgment was

entered. See Ray M. Wright, Inc. v. Jones, 239 Ga. App. 521, 522-523 (521 SE2d

456) (1999). Wright’s appeal is untimely, as it was filed 15 days after the superior

court’s order was entered. For these reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of

December 07, 2016
jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/07/2016