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


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Americare Health
Scan, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dr. Joseph P. D'Angelo, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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 all
   material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
   the company.

Date: September 16, 2008     /s/  Dr. Joseph P. D'Angelo
      ----------------      ---------------------------
                            Dr. Joseph P. D'Angelo, President, Chief
                            Executive Officer

      September 16, 2008     /s/  Robert Cano
      ----------------      --------------------
                            Robert Cano, Chief Financial Officer
Unassociated Document


     

    Exhibit
10.1

     

    
      DERYCZ
SCIENTIFIC, INC.

      FIRST
WARRANT AMENDMENT

      


      This
First Warrant Amendment (this “Amendment”) is dated
as of December 22, 2009 and hereby amends that certain Warrant to Purchase
Common Stock dated as of December 22, 2006 and issued by Derycz Scientific,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), to the
below-referenced holder and assigned the below referenced number (the “Warrant”).  The
Warrant is one of a series of warrants issued pursuant to a private placement of
the Company’s common stock and warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s
common stock completed on December 22, 2006.  The purpose of this
Amendment is to extend the term of the Warrant one additional year.

      


      Accordingly,
for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the definition of “Expiration Date” in Section 1(a)(iv) of the
Warrant is hereby amended as follows:

      


      “Expiration Date”
means December 22, 2010.”

      


      All other
terms, conditions, and provisions of the Warrant shall remain in full force and
effect.

      


      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed as of the
date first set forth above.

       

       

      
        
          	 	

                  DERYCZ
      SCIENTIFIC, INC.

                	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                   

                	
                  By:
      

                	 	 
	 	 	Name: Richard
      McKilligan 	 
	 	 	Title:   Chief Financial
      Officer 	 
	 	 	 	 


        

      

       

      


      


      Holder:
<Holder Name>

      Warrant
No.: <Warrant Number>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

h0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

142255

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142255 COA: 300114 Berrien CC: 99-402804-FC CHRISTOPHER ALLEN FRANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2010 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 166 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 166

Commemorating May 8, 2011, as the 66th anniversary of V-E Day, the end 
                       of World War II in Europe.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 2011

Mr. Johanns (for himself, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Lautenberg) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Commemorating May 8, 2011, as the 66th anniversary of V-E Day, the end 
                       of World War II in Europe.

Whereas on December 11, 1941, 4 days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, 
        Germany and Italy declared war on the United States;
Whereas on November 8, 1942, United States and Allied forces began Operation 
        Torch, the invasion of North Africa;
Whereas German and other Axis forces in North Africa surrendered on May 13, 
        1943;
Whereas in July of 1943, United States and Allied forces landed in Sicily;
Whereas on September 8, 1943, Italy surrendered to United States and Allied 
        forces, although German troops in Italy continued to fight until May of 
        1945;
Whereas more than 150,000 Allied soldiers landed in France on June 6, 1944, 
        known thereafter as ``D-Day'';
Whereas on August 25, 1944, United States and Allied forces liberated Paris;
Whereas from mid- to late- December, during the Battle of the Bulge, United 
        States troops heroically resisted a major German offensive in Belgium 
        and France;
Whereas United States troops crossed the Rhine River at Remagen on March 7, 
        1945;
Whereas Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Western Allies at Reims on 
        May 7, 1945, and to the Soviet Union on May 9, 1945, in Berlin;
Whereas during World War II, an estimated 292,000 members of the United States 
        Armed Forces were killed in action and more than 400,000 members of the 
        United States Armed Forces died; and
Whereas United States President Harry S. Truman declared May 8, 1945, ``V-E 
        day'', the end of World War II in Europe, although war with Japan 
        continued until August 14, 1945: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes the historic contribution made by United 
        States veterans of World War II to human liberty and the safety 
        of the United States and its allies;
            (2) honors veterans who served in the European Theatre of 
        Operations and elsewhere during World War II;
            (3) remembers with gratitude the members of the United 
        States Armed Forces who made the ultimate sacrifice during 
        World War II; and
            (4) commemorates May 8, 2011, as the 66th anniversary of V-
        E Day, the end of World War II in Europe.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

           In connection with the Annual Report of Minden Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10- KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Becky T. Harrell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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 all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                /s/ Becky T. Harrell
                                                --------------------
                                                Becky T. Harrell
                                                Chief Financial Officer,
                                                March 30, 2005

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act has  been  provided  to  Minden  Bancorp,  Inc.  and will be
retained by Minden  Bancorp,  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       -1-
EXHIBIT 99.4

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Scott  Edwards,  as Chief  Financial  Officer  of Radix  Marine,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-QSB report for the period ending September 30, 2003
as filed with the U.S.  Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report") fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: February 18, 2004                       /s/ Scott Edwards, CFO
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               SCOTT EDWARDS, CFO
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Eric Skolnik, Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this
Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc.; and



2. Based on my knowledge,
this 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 report.



Date: May 12, 2020



| | /s/ Eric Skolnik                                 
| | -------------------------------------------------
| | Eric Skolnik                                     
| | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Michael WAYNE, Appellant v. The GLEN MILLS SCHOOLS.

No. 10-2793.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.

Opinion Filed: Aug. 26, 2011.

Neil E. Botel, Esq., Schrom *&*Shaffer, Media, PA, Nicholas Casamento, Esq., Media, PA, for Appellant.

Guy Vilim, Esq., Vilim *&*Maddox, Media, PA, for Appellee.

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA, Circuit Judge, and RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

OPINION

McKEE, Chief Judge.

Michael Wayne appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in an action that he filed pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, *et seq.*We will affirm.

Because we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need not repeat the facts or procedural history in detail. We note only that Wayne was terminated from his position at Glen Mills following his arrest for possession of marijuana. Wayne, who is Black, alleges that Glen Mills was motivated by racial bias, and that he was treated differently than White colleagues who were similarly situated. He claims those colleagues were not terminated even though they had also been arrested.

In its detailed and well reasoned opinion, the district court determined that Wayne could not establish a *prima facie*case because none of the similarly situated employees outside his protected class received more favorable treatment. All of the employees who had worked under the same supervisor as Wayne and engaged in illegal drug use had been terminated. The district court also held that Glen Mills’ *668zero-tolerance policy with regard to staff drug use constituted a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Wayne’s discharge.

In light of the district court’s thoughtful opinion, we need not engage in a redundant analysis only to reach the same result. Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Order without further elaboration.
# C_2020348EN.01001701.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/17

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2020 — Wagenknecht v European Council

(Case T-715/19) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Combating fraud - Meeting of the European Council - Multiannual financial framework - Financial regulation - Alleged conflict of interest of the representative of the Czech Republic at a meeting of the European Council - Alleged lack of action by the European Council - Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi - Definition of the position of the European Council - End of the failure to act - Inadmissibility - Article 15(2) TEU - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2020/C 348/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (Pardubice, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Dolejská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Council (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová, A. Jensen and M.J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the European Council unlawfully failed to act on the applicant’s request to exclude the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr Andrej Babiš, from the meeting of the European Council of 20 June 2019 and from future meetings concerning the financial perspective negotiations, due to his alleged conflict of interest with regard to the requirements of Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013 (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014 and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly devoid of any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly devoid of any foundation in law.

| 2. | Lukáš Wagenknecht shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Lukáš Wagenknecht shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
# C_2019270EN.01004301.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/43

---

Action brought on 21 June 2019 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO — Gameloft (City Mania)

(Case T-381/19)

(2019/C 270/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gameloft SE (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark City Mania — Application for registration No 15 936 339

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2019 in Case R 976/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the ground of appeal to be founded and annul the contested decision, declare the existence of likelihood of confusion between the trade marks in dispute, and accordingly, order the complete rejection of the requested trade mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the ground of appeal to be founded and annul the contested decision, declare the existence of likelihood of confusion between the trade marks in dispute, and accordingly, order the complete rejection of the requested trade mark;

| — | order EUIPO and the opposing party, should it appear in the proceedings before the General Court, to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the opposing party, should it appear in the proceedings before the General Court, to bear the costs.

Plea in law

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

---
#### Denny Castro, Plaintiff, v Prana Associates Twenty One, LP, Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.) Prana Associ*694ates Twenty One, LP Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Northland Insurance, Second Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Second Third-Party Defendant.

[944 NYS2d 558]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered April 21, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted Prana’s motion for summary judgment seeking enforcement of the default judgment obtained by Prana against Four Star to the extent of declaring that Northfield, Four Star’s insurer, is required to indemnify Prana in the underlying action, and denied North-field’s motion for summary judgment against Prana, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, Prana’s motion denied, and Northfield’s motion granted to the extent of declaring that Northfield has no obligation to defend or indemnify Prana in the underlying personal injury action.

Prana’s September 29, 2009 letter notifying Northfield of the underlying action and requesting defense and indemnification as an additional insured under the Northfield policy, did not trigger Northfield’s duty to disclaim coverage as to Four Star, its named insured. Indeed, under the Northfield policy, both primary and additional insureds were required to provide notice of a claim; accordingly, notice provided by Prana could not be imputed to Four Star *(Travelers Ins. Co. v Volmar Constr. Co.,*300 AD2d 40, 43 [2002]). This is especially true given that Prana has taken a position adverse to Four Star in the underlying litigation *(id.).*

Even if Prana’s September 29, 2009 letter had provided sufficient notice with respect to both Prana and Four Star, Four Star’s failure to provide timely notice of Prana’s third-party lawsuit against it vitiated coverage under the Northfield policy *(see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rechev of Brooklyn, Inc.,*57 AD3d 257, 257 [2008]). Indeed, Northfield did not receive notice from, and did not even learn that a claim had been made against, Four Star until it received notice of the suit and default judgment from Prana on May 25, 2010, and notice of the summons and complaint from Four Star’s broker on June 2, 2010. Using either notice date (May 25, 2010 or June 2, 2010), Northfield’s disclaimer letter, dated June 14, 2010, was timely as a matter of law *(see Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Harlen Hous. Assoc.,*7 AD3d 421, 423 [2004]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
# C_2019363EN.01001701.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/17

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Sophia Group v Parliament

(Case T-578/19 R)

(Interim measures - Public service contracts - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

(2019/C 363/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sophia Group (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Schneider and C.-H. de la Vallée Poussin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Tapper Brandberg and S. Toliušis, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures seeking, first, the suspension of operation of the Parliament’s decision dated 30 July 2019 to award Lot No 1 of the tender for the ‘Provision of Buildings HelpDesk services’ (Call for tenders 06A0010/2019/M011) to another tenderer, and, secondly, the suspension of the contract concluded with that other tenderer.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2019213EN.01007102.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/71

---

Action brought on 26 April 2019 — Aurora v CPVO — SESVanderhave (M 02205)

(Case T-278/19)

(2019/C 213/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Srl (Padova, Italy) (represented by: L.-B. Buchman, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SESVanderhave NV (Tienen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 15118, sugar beet variety M 02205

Procedure before CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 27 February 2019 in Case R A010/2013-RENV

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision misapplied the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 in case T-140/15; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision misapplied the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 in case T-140/15;

| — | alter the contested decision, reverse CPVO Decision NN010 of 23 September 2013 and validate the challenge to the validity of CPVR No. EU 15118 raised by the applicant on 28 August 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision, reverse CPVO Decision NN010 of 23 September 2013 and validate the challenge to the validity of CPVR No. EU 15118 raised by the applicant on 28 August 2012;

and as a consequence:

| — | declare that CPVR No. EU 15118 is ab initio null and void; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that CPVR No. EU 15118 is ab initio null and void;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law

| — | Violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations;

| — | Dereliction of duty and denial of justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

Dereliction of duty and denial of justice.

---