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

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Glenn Catchpole, Chief Executive Officer of Uranerz Energy
Corporation (the Company), 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 my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for year
      ended December 31, 2005 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                        

| | By:    | /s/ Glenn Catchpole    
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | GLENN CATCHPOLE        
| | Title: | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
| | Date:  | October 6, 2006        

---
5A-i

APPENDIX 5A. MATERIAL PRICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5A.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5A-1

5A.2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 5A-1

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 5A-3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5A.2.1 Baseline 2-lamp F32T8 IS Ballast ...................................................................... 5A-2
5A-1

APPENDIX 5A. MATERIAL PRICES

5A.1 INTRODUCTION

 This appendix presents the results of an analysis to determine how material prices might 

affect the manufacturer selling price of ballasts. 

5A.2 METHODOLOGY

As discussed in the engineering analysis, NOPR TSD chapter 5, DOE conducted 

teardowns to determine the cost of the bill of materials (BOM) and appropriate direct labor costs 

for certain fluorescent lamp ballasts. The BOMs use material prices from January 2009. DOE 

understands that changes in material prices can affect the ultimate manufacturer selling price. 

Therefore, DOE conducted an analysis to determine how the cost of the BOM would be affected 

if DOE used a 5-year average of material prices instead of the material prices in January 2009. 

For each component type, DOE determined the January 2009 index and a 5-year average index 

(spanning 2004 to 2008) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Indices (PPIs).1

 

DOE then evaluated how the January 2009 material costs for ballasts varied from the 5-year 

average price for all ballasts. Including all changes in PPI from the 5-year average, the BOM 

price was affected by 1.4 percent for the baseline 2-lamp F32T8 ballast as shown in Table 

5A.2.1. DOE analyzed the percentage difference for all ballasts and found that the BOM ranged 

from -0.4 percent to 2.9 percent different from the 5-year average. Because these variances are 

insignificant, DOE decided not to incorporate these material price changes into the engineering 

analysis.
5A-2

Table 5A.2.1 Baseline 2-lamp F32T8 IS Ballast 

Component Type 

Percentage 

Cost of 

BOM

January 

2009 PPI

2004 to 2008 

Average PPI

Percentage 

change from 

January 2009 to 

5-year Average 

PPI

Capacitor 14.5% 108.0 109.0 1.0%

Resistor 2.0% 172.4 166.2 -3.7%

Diode* 6.4% 102.6 107.8 4.8%

Transistor* 12.8% 66.4 72.7 8.6%

Analog† 3.4% 63.6 81.7 22.2%

Printed Circuit Board 6.3% 103.0 101.4 -1.6%

Magnetic 26.8% 171.2 152.9 -11.9%

Connector 9.3% 222.6 256.9 13.3%

Cold-Rolled Sheets 11.0% 170.4 191.0 10.8%

Fuse 1.0% N/A N/A N/A

Plastics & Elastomers 4.8% N/A N/A N/A

Other 1.7% N/A N/A N/A

Total 100% 1.4%

*2004 to 2008 Average PPI does not include the December 2008 price. †

Price represents a 3.5 year average as data previous to June 2005 is not available.

N/A signifies that the PPI for that material was not available
5A-3

REFERENCES

 

1 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Indices. (Last accessed April 

5, 2011). <http://www.bls.gov/ppi>.
exv4w5



 





Exhibit 4.5




AMENDMENT AS OF JULY 10, 2007, TO WARRANT (SERIES 2) CERTIFICATE

SIGNED ON NOVEMBER 21, 2006 AND AMENDED ON APRIL 30, 2007

By

TopSpin Medical, Inc. (the “Company”)

2 Yodfat St., Global Park, Lod, Israel





	 	 	WHEREAS, on November 21, 2006, warrant (Series 2) Certificate was signed by the Company and amended
on April 30, 2007 (the “Warrant Certificate (Series 2)”); and
	 
	 	 	WHEREAS, following the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission comments and for the purpose of
listing the securities for trade in the Stock Exchange the Company is required to amend the term of
the Warrant Certificate (Series 2); and
	 
	 	 	WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Warrant Certificate (Series 2) as set forth;






	1.	 	Preamble, headings and definitions






	 	1.1	 	The preamble to this amendment to Warrant Certificate (Series 2) consists an
integral part hereof.
	 
	 	1.2	 	The headings of the sections and subsections of this amendment to Warrant
Certificate (Series 2) are for convenience of reference only and are not to be
considered in construing this Agreement






	2.	 	In the Warrant Certificate (Series 2) the following amendments will be made:






	 	2.1	 	In section 2.6 of the Overleaf Conditions of the Warrant Certificate (Series
2) – in the third line of the first paragraph after the words: “not later than”, the
word “eight” will be deleted and replaced by the word “ten”.
	 
	 	2.2	 	In section 8 of the Overleaf Conditions of the Warrant Certificate (Series 2)
– in the second and third lines of the first paragraph after the words: “notices by the
Company to the holders of warrants (Series 2) shall be made in”, the words “one of the
following ways at the discretion of the Company” will be deleted and replaced by the words
“both of the following ways”.




 









 




2



	 	2.3	 	In section 11.3 of the Overleaf Conditions of the Warrant Certificate (Series
2) – the text in this section will be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the
following text: “The competent courts of the state of Delaware shall have sole jurisdiction
with regard to the warrant (Series 2) in accordance with the laws of the state of Delaware
“.




3. In the rest of the terms of the Warrant Certificate (Series 2) and the Overleaf
Conditions there will be no change.



4. The terms of Warrant Certificate (Series 2) and this amendment will be read as one
piece.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Signed by the company

 	 
	 	/s/ Erez Golan        CEO
 	 
	 	                               /s/ Eyal Kolka        CFO
 	 
	 	Top Spin Medical, Inc.
1

Filed 5/4/ 22 P. v. Crotti CA 3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALESSANDRO ENRICO CROTTI,

Defendant and Appellant. C094661

(Super. Ct. No. CR20211698)

Appointed counsel for defendant Alessandro Enrico Crotti has asked this court to

conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable

issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436.) Having reviewed the record

as required by Wende , we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant.

A ccordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Over the c ourse of approximately three weeks, d efendant robbed three different

banks, obtaining a total of over $30,000. After being charged with 10 counts of robbery2

(Pen. Code, § § 211, 212.5 subd. (c) ), 1 and one count of attempted robbery (§§ 212.5, 213

subd. (b) ) defendant pleaded no contest to three counts of robbery; counts 2, 7, and 9.

The remaining charges were dismissed with a Harvey 2 waiver. As part of the plea,

defendant agreed to an aggregate stipulated sentence of six years , including the upper

term of five years on count 2, a concurrent term of 3 years on count 7, and a consecutive

one

- year term on count 9.

After the plea and prior to sentencing, defendant made a Marsden 3 motion. The

trial court denied the motion and proceeded to sentencing. The trial court sentenced

defendant to an aggregate term of six years , awarded him 96 days of presentence custody

credit and ordered him to pay $50,255 in direct victim restitution.

The trial court gran ted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening

brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to

review th e record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.

( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 .) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right

to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed.

More tha n 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed

.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 754.

3 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 118.3 \ s \

, BLEASE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

\ s \

, ROBIE, J.

\ s \

, DUARTE, J.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Colorado

Filters

              - science_education(4)
              - science_science(322)
              - products_data(639)
              - products_maps(724)
              - products_publications(6899)
              - products_software(6)
              - products_web_tools(18)
              - multimedia_audio(42)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(39)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(3)
              - multimedia_before_after(2)
              - multimedia_image(634)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141769(6)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(560)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141773(7)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(21)
              - multimedia_image-141776(26)
              - multimedia_image-204460(4)
              - multimedia_image-207195(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(15)
              - multimedia_stereogram(14)
              - multimedia_video(171)
              - multimedia_video-149194(77)
              - multimedia_video-149195(29)
              - multimedia_video-149196(6)
              - multimedia_video-149197(17)
              - multimedia_video-149198(3)
              - multimedia_video-149225(1)
              - multimedia_webcam(4)
              - multimedia_webcam-141786(4)
              - documents_file(38)
              - documents_file-149204(2)
              - documents_file-149208(1)
              - documents_file-149210(1)
              - documents_file-149214(1)
              - documents_file-149216(2)
              - documents_file-149218(3)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - documents_file-149220(23)
              - documents_file-149222(1)
              - documents_file-149224(3)
              - news_news-149245(33)
              - news_news-149246(3)
              - news_news-149247(1)
              - news_news-149248(18)
              - news_news-149249(7)
              - news_news-149250(8)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - connect_locations(8)
              - connect_social_media(3)
              - connect_staff_profiles(211)
              - other_basic-37(9)
              - other_basic-42(51)
              - other_basic-43(1)
              - other_basic-44(1)

## By Location

## By Year

Historical        September 21, 1923        Lees Ferry on the Colorado River, Arizona, 1923

Historical        December 31, 1872        Boats in Colorado River, Marble Canyon, Coconino County, Arizona

Historical        December 31, 1869        Area of map used by Major John Wesley Powell

Historical        December 31, 1869        John Wesley Powell and party in the Grand Canyon

Historical        July 1, 1925        USGS Topographer at Work

Historical        December 4, 2013        Sandstone Block with Large Fossil Palm Leaf
Tyrone TAYLOR, DOC #093362, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4839

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 6, 2021

a0628 

# Order

Clerk July 6, 2021

162279 (21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 162279

COA: 354191

Oakland CC: 15

- 253244

- FH

JEFFREY BERNARD ALLISON

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 27,

2021 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we ar e not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
Pascual BURCIAGA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-5538

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Colorado

Filters

              - science_education(4)
              - science_science(322)
              - products_data(639)
              - products_maps(724)
              - products_publications(6899)
              - products_software(6)
              - products_web_tools(18)
              - multimedia_audio(42)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(39)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(3)
              - multimedia_before_after(2)
              - multimedia_image(634)
              - multimedia_image-141769(6)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(560)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141773(7)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(21)
              - multimedia_image-141776(26)
              - multimedia_image-204460(4)
              - multimedia_image-207195(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(15)
              - multimedia_stereogram(14)
              - multimedia_video(171)
              - multimedia_video-149194(77)
              - multimedia_video-149195(29)
              - multimedia_video-149196(6)
              - multimedia_video-149197(17)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149198(3)
              - multimedia_video-149225(1)
              - multimedia_webcam(4)
              - multimedia_webcam-141786(4)
              - documents_file(38)
              - documents_file-149204(2)
              - documents_file-149208(1)
              - documents_file-149210(1)
              - documents_file-149214(1)
              - documents_file-149216(2)
              - documents_file-149218(3)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - documents_file-149220(23)
              - documents_file-149222(1)
              - documents_file-149224(3)
              - news_news-149245(33)
              - news_news-149246(3)
              - news_news-149247(1)
              - news_news-149248(18)
              - news_news-149249(7)
              - news_news-149250(8)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - connect_locations(8)
              - connect_social_media(3)
              - connect_staff_profiles(211)
              - other_basic-37(9)
              - other_basic-42(51)
              - other_basic-43(1)
              - other_basic-44(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)

## By Year

B-roll        March 15, 2021        B-Roll of Lees Ferry

B-roll        August 1, 2018        Handheld Underwater Suction Sampler

B-roll        May 9, 2023        Bird Collisions: Current Science and Future Opportunities
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Cave Climates

Filters

              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(4)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - iowa(1)
              - (-)massachusetts(1)
              - montana(3)
              - oregon(1)
              - south dakota(8)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(2)
              - utah(3)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 2017        Cenote Bang
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CLEMENT DAVID KING,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30057

D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00015-SEH-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 11, 2014

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Following his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor and attempted receipt

of child pornography, Clement King was sentenced to 365 months’ imprisonment. 

On appeal, a panel of this court vacated his sentence after determining that the

district court committed procedural error in calculating King’s Sentencing

FILED

DEC 16 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Guidelines range. United States v. King, 468 F. App’x 734 (9th Cir. 2012). On

remand, the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range as 151 to 188

months, but imposed the same sentence of 365 months’ imprisonment. In this

appeal, King asserts that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for “abuse of

discretion.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

We may only vacate the sentence if we have “a definite and firm conviction that

the district court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached

upon weighing the relevant factors.” United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d

1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009). In light of this deferential standard of review, we

AFFIRM.
**Exhibit 10.24**

** **

**FOURTH AMENDMENTTO THEINGERSOLL-RAND COMPANYELECTED OFFICERS SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM**

**WHEREAS,**Ingersoll-Rand Company (the"Company") maintains the amended and restated Ingersoll-Rand Company ElectedOfficers Supplemental Program (the "Program") to provide certain individualsemployed by the Company in addition to the benefits provided from otherqualified and non-qualified plans maintained by the Company; and

**WHEREAS,** the Company reserved the rightto amend the Program in accordance with Section 8.1 of the Program; and

**WHEREAS,** the Company desires to amendthe Program;

**NOW, THEREFORE,** the Program is hereby amended effective as of May 29, 2003as follows:

1.        Section 8.6 of the Program is hereby amended in its entiretyto read as follows:

**"8.6     Entire Agreement; Successors**

            The Program, including any subsequentlyadopted amendments, shall constitute the entire agreement or            contract betweenthe Company and any Employee regarding the Program.  There are no covenants,            promises, agreements, conditions orunderstandings, either oral or written, between the Company and            any Employeeregarding the provisions of the Program, other than those set forthherein.            Notwithstanding the previoussentence, to the extent any written agreement between the Company and            anEmployee modifies the provisions of the Program with respect to the Employee,such agreement shall            be deemed to modify the provisions of the Program but onlyto the extent such agreement is approved            by the Committee.  The Program and any amendment hereof shallbe binding on the Company and the            Employees and their respective heirs,administrators, trustees, successors and assigns, including but not            limited to,any successors of the Company by merger, consolidation or otherwise byoperation of law,            and on all designated beneficiaries of the Employee."

-   Except as provided herein, the Program shall remain     in full force and effect.

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed byits duly authorized representative this 9th day of June, 2003.

**                                                                        INGERSOLL-RANDCOMPANY                                                                       **By: /s/ Sharon Elliot                                                                                               Sharon Elliot                                                                             Senior VicePresident                                                                             Human Resources