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 on
Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 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) of
Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and
(B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference.

|Date: November 9, 2007 |  | /s/THOMAS E. D'AMBRAName: Thomas E. D'Ambra, Ph.D.
Title: Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
# C_2014202EN.01002202.xml

| 30.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/22

---

Order of the General Court of 6 May 2014 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission

(Case T-419/13) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to two Spanish competition proceedings - Implied refusal of access - Explicit decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 202/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras, A. Valiente Martin and C. Maldonado Márquez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s implicit decision refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents relating to correspondence exchanged between the Commission and the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC, Spanish national competition authority) with regard to two national proceedings initiated by the CNC.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and those of Unión de Almacenistas of Hierros de España. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and those of Unión de Almacenistas of Hierros de España.

| 4. | The Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Spain shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Spain shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.

1

---
# Annual contingency training underway

/ Published July 12, 2016
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTSCHEDULE**

 

The Board of Directors 

Dynamics Research Corporation 

 

Under the date of March 26, 2003, we reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of Dynamics Research Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002and 2001, and the related Consolidated Statements of Operations, Changes in Stockholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income (Loss) and Cash Flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002. In connection with ouraudits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also audited the related financial statement schedules listed in Item 8. These financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the company’s management. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statement schedules based on our audits. 

 

In our opinion, these financial statement schedules, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, theinformation set forth therein. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 26, 2003
# C_2014024EN.01003701.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/37

---

Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission

(Case T-623/13)

2014/C 24/69

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras and A. Valiente Martín, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 18 September 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 18 September 2013;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings; and

| — | in addition, as a measure of organisation of procedure, order the Commission to submit to the Court the documents to which it has denied access, so that the Court may examine them and ascertain whether the submissions made in the application are correct. |
| --- | --- |

—

in addition, as a measure of organisation of procedure, order the Commission to submit to the Court the documents to which it has denied access, so that the Court may examine them and ascertain whether the submissions made in the application are correct.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present proceedings, the applicant seeks annulment of the express rejection of its request for access to certain documents. The implied rejection of that request is the subject-matter of Case T-419/13 Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission.

Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España

Commission

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in that case.

---
# Philly news anchor helps Troop Support celebrate LGBT Pride Month 

/ Published June 23, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 
One of the first openly gay news broadcasters on TV in Philadelphia said that even at the age of 18, while filling out his selective service paperwork, he marched to the beat of his own drum.

Jim Donovan, a co-anchor of CBS 3’s Eyewitness News morning show, shared the journey of his 30-year career in TV with Naval Support Activity Philadelphia employees during the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month program June 21. Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support employees work on NSA Philadelphia. 

“I remember filling out the paperwork and ... asking, ‘Well if they do draft me, how do I know which branch of service? Do they assign you or do you pick where you want to go?’” said Donovan. 

Donovan’s dad was a Marine and said that he and his brother would therefore also be Marines.

“And I turned to him and I said, ‘First I would have to see what the uniform looks like,’” Donovan said.

Donovan has worked in broadcasting markets in New York, North Carolina and Ohio before arriving in Philadelphia in 2004 to be a consumer reporter. He is a 14-time Emmy Award winner and became anchor of the CBS 3 morning newscast in April.

Donovan said he attributes his success to hard work, making good decisions and being in the right place at the right time.

Another guest speaker for the program was Karen Faber, Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support Logistics Engineering Change Proposal Manager. Faber also moonlights as an aspiring comedian where she shares life experiences and the message that “we all are really all the same.”

“Being gay wasn’t a choice for me,” said Faber. “I didn’t choose to be different. I just wanted to fit in and be like everybody else.”

The program began with a moment of silence to remember the victims of the shooting in Orlando. The Jazz Feds, a four-piece band of base employees, also played “I'll Be Seeing You (In All the Old Familiar Places)” for the families who lost their loved ones.

The Department of Defense theme for this year’s LGBT Pride Month is “Celebration.”

“Today we celebrate our nation’s rich diversity and reaffirm our beliefs in equal treatment for all Americans,” said Lynn Kohl, NAVSUP WSS vice commander. “Getting here wasn’t easy and the road still has many challenges ahead. It has taken years of hard work, dedication and self-sacrifice from countless men and women determined to end the struggle for LGBT rights.”

The LGBT Pride Month program was hosted by DLA Troop Support Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity office and the NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support’s Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Committee. The observance is held annually to recognize the importance of diversity in the workforce and the achievements of LGBT individuals.
No. 10-6497.

#### Troy Henley, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 434,

178 L. Ed. 2d 337,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8133.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 370.
No. 10-6165.

#### Robert Herrera, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 522,

178 L. Ed. 2d 385,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8479,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
160 A.3d 705

#### JENNIFER CORMAN, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. JEFFREY CORMAN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
2017-0466.

#### State v. Allen.

Lucas App. No. L-14-1078, 2016-Ohio-2742. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
No. 10-6221.

#### Freddie Demoris Bradley, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 526,

178 L. Ed. 2d 388,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8504.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 373.
# C_2015146EN.01004701.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/47

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-58/13) (1)

1

((Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings - Failure to designate a new representative - Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 146/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: A., lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the infringement alleged of the applicant’s right to confidentiality caused by the defendant’s sending a letter concerning him to a lawyer who did not represent him.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-58/13 Marcuccio v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-58/13 Marcuccio v Commission.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013, p. 26.

1

---
# C_2015046EN.01004801.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — van der Aat and Others v Commission

(Case T-304/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff - Weighting applicable to officials and agents employed in Varese - Articles 64 to 65a of the Staff Regulations - Annex IX to the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 - Duty to state reasons - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Manifest error of assessment))

(2015/C 046/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Chris van der Aat (Besozzo, Italy) and the other officials and EU staff whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and D. Martin, and subsequently by J. Curall and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 in van der Aat and Others v Commission (F-111/11, ECR — SC, EU:F:2013:42), seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Chris van der Aat and the other officials and EU staff whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Chris van der Aat and the other officials and EU staff whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.

1

---
No. 09-8919.

#### Javier Ayala, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1079, 131 S. Ct. 634,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9227.

178 L. Ed. 2d 509,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 345 Fed. Appx. 421.
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 AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas R. McMahon, Vice President and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/S/ THOMAS R. MCMAHON                       
|Thomas R. McMahon                           
|Vice President (Principal Financial Officer)
|August 14, 2009
#### Wilmington Trust, Respondent, v Ragobar Sukhu, Also Known as Ragobar D. Sukhu, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[63 NYS3d 853]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered May 20, 2016, which, respectively, granted plaintiff summary judgment on its mortgage foreclosure claim, and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to mortgage foreclosure as a matter of law, by producing the note, mortgage, assignment, and evidence of defendant’s nonpayment, and de*592fendant failed to raise a triable issue as to a defense *(Wall St. Mtge. Bankers v Gonzalez,*126 AD3d 602 [1st Dept 2015]; *Horizons Invs. Corp. v Brecevich,*104 AD3d 475 [1st Dept 2013]).

Defendant waived his right to assert a defense based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to provide 30 days’ written notice of default, because he failed to assert it as an affirmative defense in his answer and failed to timely raise it in response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment *(Signature Bank v Epstein,*95 AD3d 1199, 1200-1201 [2d Dept 2012]; *see also*CPLR 3015, 3018 [b]). Defendant was precluded from raising his contractual notice defense for the first time in his order to show cause to dismiss the complaint, which was in fact a motion to reargue *(Matter of Setters v AI Props. & Devs. [USA] Corp.,*139 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2016]).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Maz-zarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00472-CV

In re Daniel Montes

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Daniel Montes filed petitions seeking a writ of mandamus along with

numerous other filings. However, the record reflects that Montes has been adjudged a vexatious 1

litigant, thus requiring him to comply with prefiling orders under chapter 11 of the civil practice

and remedies code for any litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other claim he presents. See

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.101; see also In re Montes, No. 05-08-00422-CV, 2008 Tex. App.

LEXIS 2593, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 9, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (addressing

Dallas County order declaring Montes a vexatious litigant). Because a vexatious litigant who is

subject to a prefiling order must comply with chapter 11 by obtaining an order from the local

administrative judge permitting the litigant’s requested filing, we notified Montes on August 14,

Montes filed: (1) a petition for writ of mandamus; (2) a brief in support of his petition 1

for writ of mandamus; (3) a supplemental petition for writ of mandamus; (4) an amended

petition for writ of mandamus and supplemental appendix; (5) an emergency motion for stay of

proceedings; (6) a second emergency motion for stay; (7) a motion for sanctions against a real party

in interest and her counsel; (8) a supplemental brief in support of sanctions against a real party in

interest and her counsel; (9) a motion for sanctions against counsel for real parties in interest;

(10) a reply in support of his amended petition for writ of mandamus, and (11) a motion to declare

the prefiling order void and to strike the notice of the order.
2015 that his petition was subject to the prefiling requirement and requested that he provide the

required order by August 21, 2015. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 11.102, .1035.

Instead of providing the required order, Montes filed a motion arguing that the

vexatious litigant prefiling order against him is void because it was not incorporated into a final

judgment. There is no such requirement in the statute. See id. § 11.001-.104. Because Montes has

not complied with chapter 11 by obtaining the required order from the local administrative judge

permitting his filings, Montes’s petitions for writ of mandamus, motions for sanctions, motion to

declare the prefiling order void, and motion to strike the notice of the order are dismissed. See id.

§ 11.1035(b). Montes’s second emergency motion for stay is dismissed as moot.

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Filed: August 18, 2015

2
# C_2013086EN.01001902.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/19

---

Action brought on 3 January 2013 — Seal Trademarks/OHIM — Exel Composites (XCEL)

(Case T-14/13)

2013/C 86/32

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Seal Trademarks Pty Ltd (Queensland, Australia) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exel Composites Oyj (Mäntyharju, Finland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s Decision of 11 October 2012 or; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s Decision of 11 October 2012 or;

| — | Subsidiarily, modify it, because it goes contrary to Articles 42, paragraphs 2 and 3, and 8, paragraph 1, letter b) of the CTMR (expressly sentencing OHIM to court fees). |
| --- | --- |

—

Subsidiarily, modify it, because it goes contrary to Articles 42, paragraphs 2 and 3, and 8, paragraph 1, letter b) of the CTMR (expressly sentencing OHIM to court fees).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘XCEL’ for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark registration No 3 809 571

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2 996 891, Austrian trade mark registration No 149 726 and Swedish trade mark registration No 324 307 of the word mark ‘EXEL’ for goods in classes 18 and 28

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
No. 10-428.

#### American Home Assurance Company, Petitioner v. UMG Recordings, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1006, 131 S. Ct. 543,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8476.

178 L. Ed. 2d 375,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 766.