alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32



Certification

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

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of CuraGen Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the Form
10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                                                             
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D.                                                                             
|                      |  |     |  | Jonathan M. Rothberg, Ph.D.                                                                                 
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board (principal executive officer)                  
|                      |  |    
|Dated: August 6, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ David M. Wurzer                                                                                         
|                      |  |     |  | David M. Wurzer                                                                                             
|                      |  |     |  | Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer (principal financial and accounting officer)



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38106-38107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15201]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Small Business: Instrumentation.
    Date: August 12, 2021.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Joonil Seog, SCD Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-9791, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

[[Page 38107]]

    Dated: July 13, 2021.
David W Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-15201 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
#### Marie Giglio, Respondent, v Joseph Carucci et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: By filing the note of issue and statement of readiness, plaintiff waived her right to further discovery *(Gray v Crouse-Irving Mem. Hosp.,*107 AD2d 1038, 1039; *Riggle v Buffalo Gen. Hosp.,*52 AD2d 751, 752). "Only where there are present 'special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances, spelled out factually,’ has Special Term discretion to depart from the rule which forecloses discovery proceedings after the statement of readiness has been filed” *(Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v Pomeroy Real Estate Corp.,*74 AD2d 734, *appeal dismissed*50 NY2d 842; *Giddens v Moultrie,*66 AD2d 993; *Doll v Kleinklaus,*66 AD2d 1003, 1004). Plaintiff’s lack of diligence in pursuing her lawsuit does *1041not constitute a "special, unusual, or extraordinary circumstance” which would justify her request for discretionary relief *(Doll v Kleinklaus, supra,*p 1004). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Inglehart, J.—discovery and inspection.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Pine, JJ.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17039 and #17040; MICHIGAN Disaster Number MI-00099]
 AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Michigan (FEMA-4607-DR), dated 07/15/2021. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         06/25/2021 through 06/26/2021.
 DATES: Issued on 07/15/2021. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         09/13/2021. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/15/2022.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 07/15/2021, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*
                     Washtenaw, Wayne. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Michigan: Jackson, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.625Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.760Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.880Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.880Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17039 6 and for economic injury is 17040 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) James Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2021-15501 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
Order entered January 31, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00362-CV

NINA D. WHITE, Appellant

V.

GUADALUPE PADILLA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-08917

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 25, 2017 second motion for an extension of time 

to file an amended brief. We GRANT the motion. Appellant shall file an amended brief by 

February 15, 2017. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
exv10w4







Exhibit 10.4





AMENDMENT TO LETTER AGREEMENT




     Reference is made to that certain letter agreement dated as of October 13, 2009 (the
“Letter Agreement”) by and among Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc.
(“LLCP”), Alex Meruelo, Meruelo Enterprises, Inc., the Alex Meruelo Living Trust
and Luis Armona. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
assigned to such terms in the Letter Agreement.



     The parties to the Letter Agreement have determined that it is necessary to amend
Section 12 of the Letter Agreement to provide that:




The date that either Alex Meruelo (on behalf of the Meruelo Parties) or LLCP may
terminate the Letter Agreement (but with respect to the Meruelo Parties, not
their obligations under Sections 4 through 15, each of which shall survive any
termination of the Letter Agreement) upon written notice to such other party is
extended from December 30, 2009 to March 31, 2010 (the “Outside Termination
Date”), provided however, if a merger agreement is entered
into with the Company with respect to the transactions contemplated by the
Letter Agreement, the Outside Termination Date shall mean the earlier of the
date that such merger is consummated or the date on which such merger agreement
is terminated by mutual agreement of the parties thereto or in accordance with
its terms.



     The parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Letter Agreement on this
23rd day of December, 2009.



[Signature page follows]





 









 








	 	 	 	 	 
	LLCP



Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc.

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Lauren B. Leichtman
 	 	 
	 	Lauren B. Leichtman, Chief Executive Officer 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	MERUELO PARTIES



Alex Meruelo

 	 	 
	                                                              /s/ Alex Meruelo
 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Meruelo Enterprises, Inc.

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Alex Meruelo
 	 	 
	 	Name:  	Alex Meruelo 	 	 
	 	Title:  	President 	 	 
	 
	Alex Meruelo Living Trust

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Alex Meruelo
 	 	 
	 	Name:  	Alex Meruelo 	 	 
	 	Title:  	Trustee 	 	 
	 
	Luis Armona

 	 	 
	/s/ Luis Armona
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Oran Tyrone WOOD, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-7151.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 19, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 13, 2009.

Oran Tyrone Wood, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Oran Tyrone Wood seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); *see United States v. Alvarez,*210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir.2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); *United States v. Reyes,*759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985).

The district court entered its order denying a reduction of sentence on March 14, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on June 26, 2008. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because Wood failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the 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.

*DISMISSED.*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6383** 

ROGER LEE DEAL, SR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v.
R . Neely , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of N orth Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:11

- hc

- 02033

- FL )

Submitted : November 15, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published p er curiam opinion
. Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roger Lee Deal, Sr., seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constit utional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims i s debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural rul ing is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Deal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we den y a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts3 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSE D
# C_2021252EN.01002002.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2021 — Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO — Valvis Holding (AC AQUA AC)

(Case T-638/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark AC AQUA AC - Earlier three-dimensional EU and national trade marks VODAVODA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 252/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: M. Maček and C. Saettel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Valvis Holding SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: D. Bogdan, G. Bozocea and M. Stănescu, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 (Case R 649/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun Stars & Sons and Valvis Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Valvis Holding SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Valvis Holding SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 17, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1829

Lower Tribunal No. 15-15587

________________

Sam Zalloum,

Appellant,

vs.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark 

Blumstein, Judge.

Sam Zalloum, in proper person.

DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, and Brandi Wilson (Fort Lauderdale), for 

appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Zalloum v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 300 So. 3d 149 

(Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (Table); De Sousa v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A., 170 So. 

3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Western Standard Energy Corp. - Exhibit 10.6







 

 






          IN WITNESS
  WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Assignment  as at the date first above written. 

	Assignor: 	Western Standard Energy Corp. 
	  	  
	  	  
	  	                   /s/
      Peter Jenks 
	  	By: Peter Jenks, President 


Province of Saskatchewan 

County of ___________

On this 17th day of December 2009, before me, a
Notary Public, personally appeared Peter Jenks, know to me to be the President
of Western Standard Energy Corp., that is described in and that executed the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that the company executed the same.


GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, this December 17, 2009.


	My Commission Expires: 	 /s/ Linda A. Perry 
	November 30, 2011 	Seal 
	  	Linda A. Perry, Notary Public 
	  	Saskatchewan 


Page 2 of 3
# C_2019363EN.01002601.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/26

---

Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Axactor v EUIPO – Axa (AXACTOR)

(Case T-594/19)

(2019/C 363/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Axactor SE (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, A. Leonelli, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Axa SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AXACTOR – Application for registration No 15 827 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2019 in Case R 479/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and intervener to bear their own costs and pay for those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and intervener to bear their own costs and pay for those of the applicant.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jason B. TIFFIN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-30194.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 20, 2008.

Filed Jan. 8, 2009.

*73Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, William Henry Redkey, Jr., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brooks Holland, Gonzaga University School of Law, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: B. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and EZRA *, District Judge.

*

 The Honorable David Alan Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Jason Tiffin appeals his 120-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea and jury conviction. Tiffin pled guilty to being a felon in possession of body armor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 931, and being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was also convicted by a jury of possession of ammunition and possession of a firearm, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm the district court’s sentence.

Tiffin challenges several of the conclusions reached by the trial judge in its enhancement calculations under the Sentencing Guidelines. Specifically, Tiffin challenges the district court’s finding that: (1) he possessed a shotgun within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a), which re-*74suited in a two-level increase to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(3); (2) he possessed the shotgun in connection with the felony offenses of unlawful possession of ammunition and unlawful possession of body armor, which resulted in a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5); (3) he was not eligible for an acceptance of responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 because he put the government to its burden of proof at trial; and (4) he obstructed justice, which resulted in a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.

Although the district court’s explanation of how it arrived at its decision to apply the enhancements lacked clarity, the record supports the district court’s conclusion that the firearm was a sawed-off shotgun with an obliterated serial number, and was used in connection with the other felony offenses. *See United States v. Zepeda-Martinez,*470 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir.2006) (upholding enhancement where the record contained “overwhelming” evidence supporting the district court’s determination). The record also supports the obstruction of justice enhancement based on Tiffin’s efforts to manufacture an alibi. *See United States v. Mattarolo,*209 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2000); *see also United States v. Tidwell,*191 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.1999). Tiffin’s sentence of 120 months, which was well below the Guideline range of 168 to 210 months, was reasonable. *See United States v. Bendtzen,*542 F.3d 722, 729 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.