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




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
      John
      A. Ward, III, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
      of
      Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
      March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of Innovative Card
      Technologies, Inc.





Dated:
                May 15, 2007
            By:
            /s/ John
                A. Ward, IIIJohn
                A. Ward, IIIChairman
                and CEO




I,
      Bennet
      P. Tchaikovsky, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
      of
      Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
      March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of Innovative Card
      Technologies, Inc.





Dated:
                May 15, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Bennet
                P. TchaikovskyBennet
                P. TchaikovskyChief
                Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      by
      Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Innovative Card
      Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
<PAGE>


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTIONS 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Supreme Holdings, Inc., on Form
10-ksb for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Thomas John Cloud, Jr., Chief
Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Sections 906 of the Sabanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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 al
                  material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

Supreme Holdings, Inc.

By: /s/ Thomas John Cloud, Jr.
   ---------------------------
Thomas John Cloud, Jr.
President and CEO
May 30, 2003
# C_2018352EN.01000602.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Miriam Bichat (C-61/17), Daniela Chlubna (C-62/17), Isabelle Walkner (C-72/17) v Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

(Joined Cases C-61/17, C-62/17 and C-72/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC - First subparagraph of Article 2(4) - Definition of ‘undertaking controlling the employer’ - Procedures for consultation of workers - Burden of proof))

(2018/C 352/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Miriam Bichat (C-61/17), Daniela Chlubna (C-62/17), Isabelle Walkner (C-72/17)

Respondent: Aviation Passage Service Berlin GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘undertaking controlling the employer’ covers all undertakings linked to that employer by shareholdings in the latter or by other links in law which allow it to exercise decisive influence in the employer’s decision-making bodies and compel it to contemplate or to plan for collective redundancies.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---
# C_2016287EN.01003301.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/33

---

Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE)

(Case T-327/16)

(2016/C 287/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fratelli Polli, SpA (Milan, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANTICO CASALE’ — EU trade mark No 10 531 432

Trade mark at issue:

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Proceedings before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2016 in Case R 1337/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Tequan Raheem FREEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3300

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
David SORIANO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1785

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 14, 2018

David Soriano, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2018328EN.01002102.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-588/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - incurred by the Kingdom of Spain - Aid granted in respect of areas with natural handicaps and agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León))

(2018/C 328/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.

---
# C_2018190EN.01002101.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2018 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-605/17) (1)

1

(2018/C 190/37)

Language of the case: Slovak

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

1

---
Exhibit 10.2
 AIRCRAFT TIME SHARING AGREEMENT  (Part 91 Operations)
   Las Vegas Sands Corp.
   Interface Operations, LLC
    INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
TRUTH IN LEASING REQUIREMENTS UNDER FAR § 91.23
 Within 24 hours after execution of this Agreement:
 
 At least 48 hours prior to the first flight to be conducted under this Agreement:  Exhibit A
 Carry a copy of this Agreement in the aircraft at all times.




---



##### 



AIRCRAFT TIME SHARING AGREEMENT  (Part 91 Operations)
 Aircraft Time Sharing Agreement
  Time Sharing of the Aircraft
 Term
 Delivery to Recipient
 Fee
       -2-




---



##### 



Return to Base
 Use of Aircraft
     -3-




---



##### 



-4-




---



##### 



Pilots
 Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities of Provider
 Liens
 Taxes
  -5-




---



##### 



Insurance
 Loss or Damage
  -6-




---



##### 



Cape Town Treaty Compliance
  -7-




---



##### 



Representations, Warranties and Agreements of Recipient
 Authorization
 Identification
 -8-




---



##### 



Representations, Warranties and Agreements of Provider
 Authorization
 FAA Registration
 Event of Default
    Providers Remedies
    General Provisions
 -9-




---



##### 



Headings
 Partial Invalidity
 Waiver
 Notices
 To Provider at:
    
    Las Vegas Sands Corp.3355 Las Vegas Blvd. SouthLas Vegas, Nevada 89109Attn: General CounselFax: (702) 733-5088Tel.: (702) 733-5631To Recipient at:
    
    Interface Operations, LLC300 First AvenueNeedham, Massachusetts 02494Attn: Stephen J. OConnorFax: (781) 449-6616Tel. (781) 449-6500
  Massachusetts Law
 -10-




---



##### 



Entire Agreement
 Amendment
 Binding Effect; Assignment
 Attorney Fees
 Remedies Not Exclusive
 No Third Party Rights
 Counterparts
 Expenses
 Broker/Finder Fees
 -11-




---



##### 



Relationship of the Parties
 Limitation of Damages
 Survival
 Truth-In-Leasing
     -12-




---



##### 



PROVIDER:
    
    RECIPIENT:LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.
    
    INTERFACE OPERATIONS, LLCBy:
    
    /s/ Michael A. Leven
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Sheldon G. AdelsonPrint: Michael A. Leven
    
    
    
    Print: Sheldon G. AdelsonTitle: President & Chief Operating Officer
    
    
    
    Title: Manager & President
  -13-




---



##### 



Schedule A
 (1)
    
    Gulfstream IV SP aircraft bearing U.S. registration number N688LS and manufacturers serial
number 1280(2)
    
    Gulfstream IV SP aircraft bearing U.S. registration number N988LS and manufacturers serial
number 1290(3)
    
    Gulfstream V aircraft bearing U.S. registration number N383LS and manufacturers serial
number 544(4)
    
    Gulfstream IV SP aircraft bearing U.S. registration number N588LS and manufacturers serial
number 1245
 -14-
# C_2017022EN.01004201.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/42

---

Action brought on 11 November 2016 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (Packaging for ice cream cornets)

(Case T-794/16)

(2017/C 022/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: Community design ‘Packaging for ice cream cornets’ — Community design No 002 343 244-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2016 in Case R 1144/2015-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare invalid RCD No. 002343244-0001 ‘Bobo Cornet’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare invalid RCD No. 002343244-0001 ‘Bobo Cornet’; and

| — | order EUIPO and Elka Zaharieva to bear the costs of Solen in relation to the proceedings before the General Court and in relation to the administrative phase of the proceedings, in particular the invalidity and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Elka Zaharieva to bear the costs of Solen in relation to the proceedings before the General Court and in relation to the administrative phase of the proceedings, in particular the invalidity and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002, |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002,

| — | Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF SCHEID VINEYARDS INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 INCLUDED ON FORM
10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             411
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,751
<PP&E>                                          46,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,661
<BONDS>                                         21,915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,890)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,220
<SALES>                                         11,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,844
<CGS>                                            8,219
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (33)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,086
<INCOME-TAX>                                       450
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       636
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11


</TABLE>
John GUIDRY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3796

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### Ethel Pruitt, a feme sole, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. Elwin S. Piper and Lillian R. Piper, Trading and Doing Business Under the Firm Name of Piper & Piper, *Defendants in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 16, 1927.

*Kurtz & Reed,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Price, Price, Neeley & Keho.e,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2422

KOFFI KPOGNON, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A76-781-031) Submitted: August 28, 2006 Decided: September 19, 2006 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).*Although Kpognon subsequently presented the claim to the Board in a motion to reconsider, no petition for review of the Board’s order denying that motion has been filed. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Koffi Kpognon, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Kpognon’s motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006). We conclude that Kpognon’s equitable tolling argument was not administratively exhausted and is therefore not properly before the court. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available . . . .”); Asika v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding court lacks jurisdiction to consider a claim that was not raised before the Board and was therefore not exhausted under § 1252(d)(1)). * Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Kpognon , No. A76-781-031 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2005). 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. PETITION DENIED
IN RE: the Minors: Lina Nicole MCCAULEY, Vash Alexander McCauley, Kai Victor McCauley

NO. 2018-CJ-2100

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.
# C_2021242EN.01004002.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Robert Klingel v EUIPO (MEN+)

(Case T-345/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for registration of the EU figurative mark MEN+ - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 242/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Robert Klingel OHG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Zick, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2020 (Case R 1906/2019-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign MEN+ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Robert Klingel OHG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Robert Klingel OHG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1


[Staples Letterhead]


September 29, 2016


Delivered By Hand
John B. Wilson
PO Box 327 
Hyannis Port, MA 02647 




Dear John:
 
As discussed, you and Staples Inc. have mutually agreed to end our employment relationship.  In addition to the severance and other benefits you will receive, you will also be eligible for a one time termination payment (the “Termination Payment”) equivalent to the amount you would have otherwise received under the Company’s Amended and Restated Executive Officer Incentive Plan (the “EOIP”) if you had remained employed through the end of fiscal year 2016, pro-rated to account for the time you were actually employed.  The calculation of the Termination Payment is dependent on the level of achievement of the company-wide performance objectives under the EOIP, which will be determined by the Company in its sole discretion on or around March 6, 2017.  For clarity, assuming your last day of employment is October 31, 2016 and the company-wide performance objectives (including budgeted Earnings Per Share (EPS), Beyond Office Supply Sales (BO$$) Growth and Gross Margin $) are achieved at target levels, the amount of the Termination Payment will be equivalent to three-quarters (3/4) of 85% of your annual base salary; subject to adjustment in accordance with the methodology for determining payouts under the EOIP, including any threshold or maximum amounts.  The Termination Payment, minus mandatory withholdings, will be paid in a lump sum by March 31, 2017, and will be subject to any right of recovery set forth in the EOIP.


In addition, the Company will pay you a monthly housing allowance of Euro 12,500 per month plus reasonable utility expenses for the period beginning the day after your last day of employment and ending on February 28, 2017.  Nothing in this paragraph imposes an obligation on the Company to extend the work and/or residence permit of you or your family in The Netherlands; you assume the responsibility to comply with the immigration laws of The Netherlands if you elect to remain in the country after your last day of employment. 


To be eligible to receive the Termination Payment and housing allowance set forth herein, you must remain employed through your Effective Termination Date, execute and return the signed Staples Severance Letter Agreement, and honor all obligations in the latter agreement.


Sincerely,


Regis Mulot


Regis Mulot
Executive Vice President Human Resources
Staples, Inc.















Acknowledgement:


 I, the undersigned, John B. Wilson, acknowledge receipt of the above letter and agree to its terms.
_/s/ John B. Wilson_______________
John B. Wilson
Date: 9-29-16