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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

The undersigned officer of Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company’s quarterly report onForm 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Thiscertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”)promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”),and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) ofItem 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed”for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject tothe liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or theExchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporatesit by reference.

 

 
| Date: May 10, 2006 |                                                                                                      |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | /s/ Thomas E. D’Ambra                                                                                |
|               | Name: Thomas E. D’Ambra, Ph.D.  Title: Chairman of the Board, President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Pamille Green, as Administrator of the Estate of Ernest L. Green, Deceased, Respondent, v Suzette M. Mazurski, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[768 NYS2d 869]

*1371Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Notaro, J.), entered October 31, 2002, which denied the motion of defendant Suzette M. Mazurski for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the complaint against defendant Suzette M. Mazurski is dismissed.

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of Suzette M. Mazurski (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her. Defendant was stopped at an intersection intending to make a left-hand turn when her vehicle was struck from behind by a motorcycle operated by plaintiffs decedent, who died as a result of the accident. According to plaintiff, defendant was negligent in failing to maintain proper brake lights on her vehicle. In support of the motion, defendant submitted her deposition testimony, wherein she testified that, before approaching the intersection, she activated her turn signal and, as an additional precaution, used an arm signal to warn others of her intention to turn. Additionally, she testified that her vehicle was in good working condition and that her brake lights were operable at the time of the accident. Defendant thereby met her initial burden on the motion by establishing that she was not negligent, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; *Bromstead v Giallanza,*247 AD2d 914 [1998]). Plaintiffs own affidavit and the attorney’s affidavit submitted by plaintiff are not based on personal knowledge and thus lack probative value *(see Bendik v Dybowski,*227 AD2d 228, 229 [1996]). Although plaintiff also submitted the safety check report prepared by police eight days after the accident, the report is not in admissible form *(see Rue v Stokes,*191 AD2d 245, 246-247 [1993]) and plaintiff failed to offer an acceptable excuse for her failure to obtain the requisite certification or authentication to render the report admissible *(see*CPLR 4518 [a], [c]). We therefore reverse the order, grant the motion of defendant and dismiss the complaint against her. Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnathan Golden, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 111]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered May 5, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, unlawful sale, possession, or use of an imitation pistol, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and operating a motor vehicle without a license, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the dénial, after a hearing (Paynter, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. “A suppression court’s credibility findings are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” *(People v Bookman,*131 AD3d 1258, 1260 [2015]; *see People v Vargas,*123 AD3d 1149 [2014]; *People v Diggs,*38 AD3d 565 [2007]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not err in crediting the testimony of a police officer that he observed the defendant make a right turn without signaling, which justified the stop of the defendant’s vehicle for a traffic infraction, ultimately leading to the recovery of the challenged physical evidence *(see*Ve-*778hide and Traffic Law § 1163 [a]; *People v Guthrie,*25 NY3d 130, 133 [2015]; *People v Robinson,*97 NY2d 341, 348 [2001]; *People v Bookman,*131 AD3d at 1260; *People v Davis,*103 AD3d 810, 811 [2013]; *People v Glover,*84 AD3d 977, 978 [2011]; *People v Leiva,*33 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2006]). The court’s credibility determination was supported by the record *(see People v Barnes,*129 AD3d 981, 982 [2015]; *People v Rowley,*127 AD3d 884, 885 [2015]; *People v Glenn,*53 AD3d 622, 624 [2008]; *People v James,*19 AD3d 617 [2005]; *People v Lam,*226 AD2d 554 [1996]; *cf. People v Lebron,*184 AD2d 784 [1992]).

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials. The statements were made after the defendant intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his *Miranda*rights *(see Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]), and were not the product of coercion *(see People v Redd,*141 AD3d 546, 548 [2016]; *People v Baxter,*140 AD3d 1180, 1181 [2016]; *People v Cruz,*137 AD3d 1158, 1158-1159 [2016]; *People v Kaye,*137 AD3d 938, 939 [2016]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Maltese, JJ., concur.
# C_2014078EN.01000301.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Nederland) lodged on 12 December 2013 — H.J. Mertens v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-655/13)

2014/C 78/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.J. Mertens

Applicant:

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Should Article 71(1)(a)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as precluding a frontier worker who, immediately after a full-time employment relationship with an employer in a Member State, is employed for fewer hours by another employer in the same Member State, from being classified as a partially unemployed frontier worker?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2 [DE, FR, IT, NL]; English special edition: Series I Volume 1971(II) P. 416-463).

1

---
# C_2013123EN.01002902.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/29

---

Action brought on 4 February 2013 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-11/13)

2013/C 123/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to transfer the applicant to a post at EEAS headquarters and to terminate his posting to an EU delegation.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 8 March 2012 to transfer the applicant, with effect from 1 September 2012, to a post at headquarters and to bring his posting to a premature end; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 8 March 2012 to transfer the applicant, with effect from 1 September 2012, to a post at headquarters and to bring his posting to a premature end;

| — | Order the EEAS to pay an amount equivalent to the difference between his earnings from 1 September 2012, when he was repatriated to headquarters, and his former earnings, until 1 September 2013, the date on which he could have been transferred back to headquarters in the context of the system of rotation of the heads of delegation posts; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EEAS to pay an amount equivalent to the difference between his earnings from 1 September 2012, when he was repatriated to headquarters, and his former earnings, until 1 September 2013, the date on which he could have been transferred back to headquarters in the context of the system of rotation of the heads of delegation posts;

| — | In so far as necessary, annul the decision to reject his complaint of 24 October 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as necessary, annul the decision to reject his complaint of 24 October 2012;

| — | Order the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---
# Acquisition professionals video series debuts

/ Published Feb. 24, 2016
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
The first of nine videos profiling Defense Logistics Agency acquisition professionals debuted on the organization’s YouTube and Facebook sites Feb. 24.

Over the next nine weeks, a new one to three minute video will be posted to the two sites. The first acquisition video profiles DLA Human Resources Director Brad Bunn, DLA Logistics Operations Deputy Director Mike Scott and DLA Acquisition Deputy Director Roxanne Banks sharing their personal insights in becoming successful acquisition professionals in the video titled “Big A is Critical to Mission Support.”

“The role of the acquisition professional is extremely important to the Department of Defense and unique to DLA,” Bunn said. “These videos bring our core values to life. People respond better to stories and they respond better to stories from people they can identify with and can say ‘I can do that or I am doing that.’”  

Key messages contained in the videos are the importance of training and certification needed to succeed in the acquisition career fields.

“As director of Human Resources, my job is to hire, develop and retain high performing, skilled and resilient professionals,” Bunn said. “We’re committed to enabling all levels of our acquisition workforce to hone their skills and experience, and maximize their potential. Through education, training and the right professional and leadership development, you can be successful in your current job and prepare for advancement to senior level positions.”

To view the video, visit DLA’s Facebook page or YouTube page.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-169]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-901-000]


Sierra Pacific Power Company; Notice of Filing

December 30, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 26, 1997, Sierra Pacific Power Company 
(Sierra), filed an amendment to the unexecuted Network Service 
Agreement with the Truckee Donner Public Utility District that Sierra 
Pacific previously filed in the above-referenced docket on July 2, 
1997.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervence or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests must be filed on or before January 9, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of the filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-169 Filed 1-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

 

**                                                THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY                                                   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 The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicatedbelow, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The MonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  August 14, 2006

|   |   |  /s/ Walter H. Wulf, Jr.                 Walter H. Wulf, Jr.    President and     Chairman of the Board 
                                                   

 

 

  |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby  consent to the  incorporation
of  our  report dated March  7,  2001, included  in  this  Form 10-K,  into  the
Company's previously filed Amendment No. 1 to  Form S-4  Registration  Statement
No. 333-25355 and post-effective Amendment Nos. 2 through 5 on Form S-2 to  Form
S-1 Registration Statement No. 33-59279 and Form S-8 Registration Statement  No.
333-38034.








Vienna, Virginia
March 27, 2001
* 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. 97-40121 Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JEANNE CARSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-31-2

_________________________________________________________________ September 17, 1997 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jeanne Carson was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the

United States by filing false claims for federal income tax refunds

and aiding and abetting. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 286, 287. She appeals,

arguing that there was insufficie nt evidence to support her

conviction. Because Carson failed to move for a judgment of-2-

acquittal at the close of the evidence with respect to the courts

that she was ultimately convicted on, review is limited to whether

there was a manifest miscarriage of justice. U nited States v.

McCarty , 36 F.3d 1349, 1358 (5th Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the

record and it is not “devoid of evidence pointing to guilt” or “so

tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” Id.

A F F I R M E D.
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00571-CV

Ted Kaldis aka Ted Lefteris Kaldis 

v.

Crest Finance

NO. 2012-71189 IN THE 281ST DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

RPT RECORD

CLK RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

MT FEE

$10.00

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$610.00

$74.00

$175.00

$20.00

$10.00

05/15/2015

04/17/2015

03/27/2015

01/16/2015

10/03/2014

09/19/2014

08/20/2014

07/31/2014

07/21/2014

07/21/2014

07/11/2014

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

E-PAID

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$954.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 
hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this July 24, 2015.
----

|   | (1)    | U.S.      Subsidiary Wholly Owned by LaserCard Corporation:    |                         |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                           |                         |
|   |   | Name of      Subsidiary                                        | State of      Incorporation  |
|   |   |                                                           |                         |
|   |   | LaserCard      Corporation                                     | California                   |
|   |   |                                                           |                         |
|   | (2)    | Foreign      Subsidiary Wholly Owned by LaserCard Corporation: |                         |
|   |   |                                                           |                         |
|   |   | Name of      Subsidiary                                        | Nation of      Incorporation |
|   |   |                                                           |                         |
|   |   | Challenge      Card Design Plastikkarten GmbH                  | Germany                      |
No. 10-5358.

#### Cecil B. Mathews, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 917, 131 S. Ct. 283,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7371.

178 L. Ed. 2d 186,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 34 So. 3d 2.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                      RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                      NINE MONTHS    THREE MONTHS
                                         ENDED          ENDED             YEARS ENDED NOVEMBER 30
                                      NOVEMBER 30,   FEBRUARY 28,   ------------------------------------
       (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)             1998           1998        1997     1996       1995      1994
       ----------------------         ------------       ----       ------   -------   --------   ------
<S>                                   <C>            <C>            <C>      <C>       <C>        <C>
Income (loss) before taxes,
  extraordinary items and accounting
  changes...........................    (19,064)         4,907      14,046   674,656   (934,871)  53,749
                                        -------         ------      ------   -------   --------   ------
Fixed Charges:
  Interest..........................     36,313          6,940      31,261     3,083      1,926    1,809
  Interest factor portion of
     rentals........................        854            199       1,043       828        612      500
                                        -------         ------      ------   -------   --------   ------
          Total fixed charges.......     37,167          7,139      32,304     3,911      2,538    2,309
                                        -------         ------      ------   -------   --------   ------
Earnings before income taxes and
  fixed charges.....................     18,103         12,046      46,350   678,567   (932,333)  56,058
                                        =======         ======      ======   =======   ========   ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges...........................       0.49           1.69        1.43    173.50    (367.35)   24.28
                                        =======         ======      ======   =======   ========   ======
Earnings inadequate to cover fixed
  charges...........................    (19,064)                                       (934,871)
                                        =======                                        ========
</TABLE>