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

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Each of the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of The Princeton Review, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 30, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    MICHAEL J.
PERIK   
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                      |  | Michael J. Perik       
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 30, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    STEPHEN C. RICHARDS
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                      |  | Stephen C. Richards    
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                     |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Princeton Review, Inc. and will be
retained by The Princeton Review, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(16)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149197(2)

## By Location

              - arizona(3)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(2)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(2)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - montana(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(2)
              - north dakota(2)
              - oregon(2)
              - south dakota(3)
              - (-)texas(2)
              - utah(2)
              - washington(2)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

How to's and trainings        June 11, 2020        Land Treatment Exploration Tool — Step 5: Select Search Parameters

How to's and trainings        June 11, 2020        Land Treatment Exploration Tool — Step 6: Compare the LTDL Treatments
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6062

JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SALLIE C. SMITH, Clerk of Court for Oconee

County,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-1274-2-21AJ)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se. Merl Floyd Code, Sr.,

CODE, WESTON & MOSLEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Appellant failed to provide a transcript of the bench trial

at which the district court stated the reasons for denying relief.

See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1025 (1992). Moreover, Appellant

has failed to state a substantial claim justifying preparation of

a transcript at government expense. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994).

Consequently, we affirm the district court's order. We deny Appellant's motion for an extension of time to perfect his appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Lester K. CAMPBELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5054

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Bernard MUSZYNSKI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Katherine C. Parker, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1861

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 22, 2019

Christopher V. Carlyle, of The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, Orlando, for Appellant.

Wendy F. Lumish, of Bowman and Brooke, LLP, Miami, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
# C_2020378EN.01002101.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/21

---

Appeal brought on 18 September 2020 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17, Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

(Case C-439/20 P)

(2020/C 378/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, G. Luengo, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17 Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2020 in Case T-110/17 Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd v Commission;

| — | reject the application at first instance as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application at first instance as inadmissible;

| — | in the alternative: reject the application at first instance as unfounded; and in any event; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative: reject the application at first instance as unfounded; and in any event;

| — | order the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal and of the first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal and of the first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits four grounds of appeal.

First, the General Court committed an error in law related to the admissibility and effectiveness of the application at first instance.

Second, the General Court committed errors in law concerning the qualification of the collection of duties as ‘retroactive’.

Third, the General Court erred in the interpretation of Article 8(1), (9) and (10), and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1) and Article 13(1), (9) and (10), and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (2) when concluding that the collection of duties on imports that have breached the undertaking was not possible.

Fourth, the General Court erred in the interpretation of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 when concluding that the Council lacked the legal basis to provide that wherever the Commission invalidates an undertaking invoice, the duty was to be collected.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 188, p. 93).

---
Stephon BUSBEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1874

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
31.1





Chief
Executive Officer Certification (Section 302)





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I,
Patrick Herda, certify that:





(1)           I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Nuclear Solutions, Inc.,
(Registrant).





(2)           Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;





(3)           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





(4) The
registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





(a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





(b)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and





(c)
disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
and





(5)           The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a)  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information ; and





(b)  any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:
August 19, 2009








By:
                /s/
      Patrick HerdaPatrick
      HerdaChief
      Executive Officer
# C_2021217EN.01001701.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrazhen sad Razgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 October 2020 — BNP Paribas Personal Finance S.A., Bulgaria Branch v T.G.M.

(Case C-535/20)

(2021/C 217/24)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Okrazhen sad Razgrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: BNP Paribas Personal Finance S.A., Bulgaria Branch

Defendant and respondent: T.G.M.

By order of 14 April 2021, the Court (Sixth Chamber) ruled as follows:

Article 10(2) and Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires all components of a consumer credit agreement to be presented using the same font type, the same font format and the same font size, that is, no smaller than 12 point.

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Chrystal CLUES-ALEXANDER

NO. 2018-KK-1977

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 28, 2019

*902Denied.
# C_2022095EN.01000401.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/4

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ráckevei Járásbíróság — Hungary) — EP, TA, FV, TB v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

(Case C-670/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Terms exposing the borrower to a foreign exchange risk - Article 4(2) - Requirements of intelligibility and transparency - Lack of effect of the declaration by the consumer under which he or she is fully aware of the potential risks arising from a loan denominated in a foreign currency - Contractual term that is in plain, intelligible language)

(2022/C 95/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Ráckevei Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EP, TA, FV, TB

Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt.

Operative part of the order

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of transparency of terms of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency, which expose the borrower to a foreign exchange risk, is satisfied only where the seller or supplier has provided him or her with accurate and sufficient information on the foreign exchange risk, to enable an average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect to evaluate the risk of potentially significant adverse economic consequences of such terms on his or her financial obligations throughout the term of the agreement. In that regard, the fact that the consumer declares himself or herself to be fully aware of the potential risks arising from entering into that agreement does not, in itself, have any relevance for the purposes of the assessment of whether the seller or supplier has met that requirement of transparency.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---
Exhibit 32

XENOGEN CORPORATION

Section 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xenogen Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, the undersigned officers of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of our knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                              |  |                                                                           
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 12, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ DAVID W. CARTER         
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                              |  | David W. Carter                                                           
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                              |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board                         
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 12, 2006 |  |  |  |     |  | /s/ WILLIAM A. ALBRIGHT, JR.
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                              |  | William A. Albright, Jr.                                                  
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                              |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Operations, and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicerpursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 1, 2009(as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and amongNHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2009-C, does herebycertify that:

 

1.                                      NHCC isServicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.                                      The undersignedis duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement toexecute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.                                      ThisCertificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale andServicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.                                      A review of theServicer’s activities during the period from the trust’s initial cutoff date, September 30,2009, to and including December 31, 2009 and of its performance under theSale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.                                      To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the period from the trust’s initial cutoff date, September 30,2009, to and including December 31, 2009.

 

6.                                      IN WITNESSWHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 29th day of March 2010.

 

----

 

March 29, 2010

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Steven C. Bierman |
|--------|--------|-----------------------|
|   | Name:  | Steven C. Bierman     |
|   | Title: | President             |

 

----
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(5)
              - (-)multimedia_audio(3)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(2)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(3)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(2)
              - colorado(1)
              - florida(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - (-)south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(24)
              - virginia(2)

## By Year

Podcasts        October 18, 2009        Emerging Contaminants, Pharmaceuticals in S. Carolina Rivers & Streams

Interviews        April 18, 2011        USGS Hydrologic Investigation of West Africa's Congo River (part 3)

Podcasts        July 30, 2009        Introduction to USGS Water Science in South Carolina
Michael A. MATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3100

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 12, 2019

Michael A. Matson, Madison, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**Jordan v. State*, 143 So.3d 335, 340 (Fla. 2014).

EVANDER, C.J., ORFINGER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


August 2, 2006


To the Compuware Corporation
Detroit, Michigan:

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial
information of Compuware Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods ended June
30, 2006 and 2005, as indicated in our report dated August 2, 2006 (which report
includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, Share-Based Payment); because we did
not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8: No. 333-68808,
333-57984, 333-79821, 333-70549, 333-43971, 333-37873, 333-17263, 33-57364,
333-4522, 33-70852, 33-78822, 33-98742, and 333-119956.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
David CHALLENDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2589

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 30, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant, v. Samuel F. BELCHER, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4581

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Dwayne MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1812

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 21, 2019

Dwayne Martin, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Osterhaus, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Dr. Usha JAIN and Manohar Jain, Appellants, v. David BARKER, Mary Beth Valley, Michael Furbush and Roetzel and Andress, P.A., Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-1215

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 22, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.