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 Annual Report of MERA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby 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 knowledge:




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 operation of the Company.




Date: February 10, 2012
By:
/s/ Gregory F. KowalName:
Gregory F. KowalTitle:
Principal Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to MERA Pharmaceuticals, Inc and will be retained by MERA Pharmaceuticals, Inc and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
BYNUM v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE

440P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

Waddell Bynum, for Bynum, Waddell.

*251The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of December 2018 by Plaintiff for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30,2010 of A123 Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, MichaelRubino, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: November 10,  2010 |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   |
| /s/ Michael Rubino             |   |
| Michael Rubino                 |   |
| Chief Financial Officer        |   |

 

----
7/17/2015 

 Page 1 of 1 

INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT 

Summary Page 

Chemical ID: P-15-0559 Reviewer: Wong/EN

Endpoints-Assessed Table 

Endpoints/Assessment 

Cycles1

Releases 

Assessed in 

NCEM2?

Reasons for not assessing releases

No XB 

Testing 

Required

No 

Hazard 

Concern

No 

Releases

Release 

Below 

Acute 

Threshold5

Release 

Below 

Chronic 

Threshold5

Other

Ingestion

Surface water

Ground water (landfill)

Consumer Use: DtD2

Inhalation

Air: incineration (stack)

Air: fugitive

Consumer Use: CEM3

Dermal

Consumer Use: CEM

Eco

Surface water: ADR 

conc and/or PDM4

Consumer Use: DtD

1Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model. 

2Down-the-Drain 

3Consumer Exposure Model 

4

Probabilistic Dilution Model 

5The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses. 

EAB DROP: Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation of an exposure 

assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch’s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report (this report).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1

<S>                                           <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-mos
<CASH>                                            819,519
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     135,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,007,856
<PP&E>                                          6,551,002
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,557,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  5,032,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,592,398
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                        354,252
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    5,032,142
<SALES>                                         1,183,965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,220,964
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     773,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,272,778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                350,601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,354,228)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,354,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,354,228)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0


</TABLE>
No. 09-8759.

#### Albert Hallmon, Petitioner v. Florida.

559 U.S. 1015, 130 S. Ct. 1903,

176 L. Ed. 2d 380,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2622.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, denied.

Same case below, 19 So. 3d 413.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5133 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5133

   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to accept the donation of 
 certain sites in Monroe County, Michigan, relating to the Battles of 
 the River Raisin during the War of 1812 for inclusion in the National 
                              Park System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2006

 Mr. Dingell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to accept the donation of 
 certain sites in Monroe County, Michigan, relating to the Battles of 
 the River Raisin during the War of 1812 for inclusion in the National 
                              Park System.

    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 ``River Raisin Battlefield Acquisition 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ACQUISITION OF MONROE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, SITES RELATING TO 
              BATTLES OF THE RIVER RAISIN.

    (a) Duty to Accept Donation.--If offered by Monroe County, 
Michigan, or other willing landowners in the County, the Secretary of 
the Interior shall accept on behalf of the United States the donation 
of real property in the County relating to the Battles of the River 
Raisin on January 18 and 22, 1813, and their aftermath.
    (b) Treatment of Acquired Sites.--The Secretary shall include real 
property acquired under subsection (a) in the National Park System. The 
real property may be designated as a new unit of the National Park 
System or included in an existing unit of the National Park System.
    (c) Report.--Not later than three years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources of the Senate a report containing a description 
of all real property acquired under subsection (a) and the disposition 
of such real property.
                                 <all>
```
Attachment 003 – TS1201UC – Pre-Notice Communication

1 page

sanitized
# C_2017220EN.01005401.xml

| 8.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/54

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8510 — Robert Tönnies/Clemens Tönnies/Zur Mühlen Group and Asset Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 220/06)

On 27 June 2017, 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 32017M8510. 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 32017M8510. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
Plan
  
    
    that you have received and reviewed a copy of the Plan;
    
    that terms not defined in this letter but beginning with initial capital letters
shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Plan;
    
    that your participation in the Plan requires that you agree irrevocably and
voluntarily to the terms of the Plan and the terms set forth below; and
    
    that you have had the opportunity to carefully evaluate this opportunity, and desire
to participate in the Plan according to the terms and conditions set forth herein.




---



##### 



the parties
  Salary Continuation Benefits
 COBRA Subsidy
 Acceleration of Equity Awards
 Definition and Interpretation of Good Reason




---



##### 



Loss of Eligibility
 
    
    Failure to Provide an Effective Release. As a condition of receiving
any Retention Benefits pursuant to the Plan and this Participation Agreement, you
must execute and not revoke a Release supplied by the Company. Payments of
Retention Benefits will not commence until your Release has become effective and
irrevocable.
    
    Alternative Employment. If, subsequent to the commencement of Retention
Benefits, you secure alternative employment, your right to Company-subsidized
COBRA premiums will end but, subject to the terms of the Plan and your Notice of
Eligibility, you will remain eligible to receive salary continuation benefits.
    
    Violation of Certain Obligations. If, subsequent to the commencement of
Retention Benefits, you violate the continuing non-disclosure, non-competition, or
non-solicitation provisions applicable to you under an agreement with the Company,
your right to continuing salary continuation benefits and Company-subsidized COBRA
premiums will end, and the Company will be entitled to recover any prior payments
made to you and to exercise any other rights and remedies it may have under the
terms of the applicable agreement.
    
    Non-Qualifying Termination. If your employment with the Company ends in
circumstances that are not a Qualifying Termination (for example, you are




---



##### 



Waiver of Other Benefits; Non-Duplication Executive Plan
 Tax Compliance
 Severability of Provisions




---



##### 



Acknowledgment
 Amendment of Assignment of Inventions, Non-Disclosure, Non-Solicitation and
Non-Competition Agreement with the exception of John McCurdy and John
Czupak
 Entire Agreement
 EFFECTIVE AS OF AUGUST 22, 2008
 SOURCEFIRE, INC., a Delaware corporationBy:
    /s/ John BurrisTitle: Chief Executive OfficerCompany Accepted and Agreed this 25th day of August, 2008.THOMAS M. MCDONOUGHSIGNED:
    /s/ Thomas M. McDonoughParticipant
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated January 23, 1997, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of Central and Southern Holding Company for the year ended
December 31, 1996, included in the Form 10-K for Premier Bancshares, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 1998. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Premier Bancshares,
Inc. on Form S-3D (File No. 333-60245), Forms S-8 (File No. 333-29941, File No.
333-59475 and File No. 333-60249) and the Registration Statement (Post effective
amendment #1 on Form S-8 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4, File No. 
333-65025) pertaining to the Fredrica Bank and Trust Directors Stock Option 
Plan.


                                                    /s/ PORTER KEADLE MOORE, LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 24, 1999
408 P.2d 856

#### James AVENENTE, dba Oak Tavern, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona and Addie Pat Smouse, Respondents.

1 CA-IC 68.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Dec. 14, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1966.

Harry W. Bagnall, Coolidge, for petitioner.

Virginia Hash and Walter W. McMillen, Phoenix, for respondent Addie Pat Smouse.

CAMERON, Judge.

This is a writ of certiorari to review the lawfulness of an award of the Industrial Commission of Arizona reaffirming a previous finding and award in favor of the respondent Smouse, and against the petitioner, James Avenente.

We are called upon to determine whether the evidence supports the award of the Commission.

Respondent, Addie Pat Smouse, filed a claim with the Industrial Commission on 28 February, 1963, claiming an injury to her back while working' for the petitioner in his bar in Florence, Arizona. The Commission entered an award on 18 March 1963, finding that the petitioner did not sustain an injury as claimed. This award was protested by the respondent Smouse, and a second hearing was held in' Florence on 29 April, 1963, after which the Commission directed that the findings and award of 18 March, 1963, be amended to indicate a compensable award and that the defendant-employer be ordered to pay compensation and accident benefits. That award was set aside by this Court because of the failure to allow the petitioner the right of cross examination. Avenente v. Smouse, 1 Ariz.App. 24, 398 P.2d 932 (1965). Pursuant to said opinion, a hearing was held on 5 May, 1965, in Florence, Arizona, at which time full opportunity was accorded petitioner to cross examine witnesses relied upon by the Commission.

We have previously held that when an award is set aside, the parties thereto must be provided with an opportunity for a trial de novo. Nye v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz.App. 166, 406 P.2d 884 (1965), but see opinion modified on this-point, Nye v. Industrial Commission, 2 Ariz.App. 279, 408 P.2d 41 (1965). In the instant *337case, the attorney for the petitioner and the attorney for the respondent both *agreed;*

> “That the entire file and hearings that have transpired prior to today will be in evidence and will be deemed part of this record.”

This being the case, we may consider the Commission’s entire file on appeal.

We have reviewed the file and find that the evidence is sufficient upon which the Commission might base its “Decision Upon Rehearing Affirming Previous Findings and Award”. The evidence before the Commission being sufficient to reasonably support their decision, we will not disturb it upon appeal.

The award is affirmed.

STEVENS, C. J., and DONOFRIO, J., concurring.
No. 01-14-00871-CV

PLAYA VISTA LP, MORGAN- §

MULTI FAMILY LLC, and SCOTT §

MORGAN §

Appellant §

§

v. §

§ COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

LAKESIDE RE, LP, GSRE, INC., §

and, AVI RON § FIRST DISTRICT

Appellee §

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Appellants, Playa Vista LP, Morgan-Multi Family LLC, and Scott Morgan, 

asks the Court to extend the time to file their Appellate Brief. 

Introduction

1. This motion is filed before the Appellate Brief is due. There is no specific 

deadline to file this motion to extend time. See Tex. R. App. Proc. 38.6(d). 

2. The parties have agreed to this motion. 

Argument & Authorities

3. The Court may grant an extension of time under Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 38.6(d) and 10.5(b). 

4. The deadline to file the Appellate Brief is February 26, 2015. Appellants 

request an additional thirty (30) days to file the Appellate Brief, extending the 

deadline to Monday, March 30, 2015. 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00871-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/23/2015 12:46:20 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/23/2015 12:46:20 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
5. For purposes of previous and upcoming scheduling conflicts, counsel for 

Appellants request an extension. 

6. An extension/stay was previously requested due to summary judgment hearings 

in the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County in this cause, causing the 

case to be abated. The appeal was reinstated last month. Therein, this is 

Appellants’ first request for an extension to file. 

Conclusion and Prayer

7. For the reasons stated above, Appellants ask the Court to grant an extension of 

time to file the Appellate Brief until March 30, 2015. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

PARANJPE & MAHADASS LLP 

/s/ Tej Paranjpe___________

Tej R. Paranjpe

State Bar Number: 24071829

3701 Kirby, Suite 530

Houston, Texas 77098

832.667.7700 Telephone

832.202.2018 Facsimile

tparanjpe@pandmllp.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I have conferred with opposing counsel, Jerry Hecht, by email, 

and he has agreed and is unopposed to Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File 

Appellate Brief. 

/s/ Tej Paranjpe_________

TEJ R PARANJPE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, I have served the foregoing document upon the following 

parties by facsimile or email correspondence:

Jerry Hecht

trialatt@aol.com

Dated: February 23, 2015

/s/ Tej Paranjpe_________

TEJ R PARANJPE
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of 1st Colonial Bancorp, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below,hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

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

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert C. Faix                                 |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert C. Faix                                     |
|   | Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated:  November 13, 2003

 

----
STATE v. Kenneth Vernon GOLDER

79PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 3, 2019

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Golder, Kenneth Vernon.

Michael T. Henry, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 31st of May 2019 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of June 2019."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 10th day of July 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
No. 09-9908.

#### Ronald Eugene Reeve, Petitioner v. Roseann Campbell, Warden.

560 U.S. 913, 130 S. Ct. 3310,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1199,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4019.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

*1200Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 20.
Amendment 2010-1 Nonqualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.12 

 

 

 AMENDMENT 2010-1 
 TO THE 
 AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC. 

AND ITS DESIGNATED SUBSIDIARIES 
 NONQUALIFIED EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
 Pursuant to the authority reserved to the
American Water Works Company, Inc. Board of Directors (the “Board”) under Section 5.06 of the American Water Works Company, Inc. and Its Designated Subsidiaries Nonqualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”), the
Board hereby amends the Plan as follows: 
  

	1.	Effective for the first Purchase Period (as defined in the Plan) that commences after January 2011, and each Purchase Period thereafter, Section 1.09(b) of the
Plan is hereby amended to delete clause (iii), and to renumber clauses (iv) and (v) as (iii) and (iv), respectively. 

  

	2.	In all respects not modified by this Amendment 2010-1, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as evidence of the adoption of this Amendment 2010-1 to the Plan set forth herein, the
Board has caused this instrument to be executed this 8th
day of February, 2011. 
  

			
	American Water Works Company, Inc. Board of Directors
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas S. Wyatt

		 	Thomas S. Wyatt
		 	Asst. Secretary
STATE of North Carolina v. Domenico Alexander LOCKHART

No. 233P14-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

James A. Wellons, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Domenico Alexander Lockhart, for Lockhart, Domenico Alexander.

*157***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of April 2019 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th of April 2019 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of April 2019 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."

Ervin, J and Davis, J recused