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

CERTIFICATIONS

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Logility, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2007 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Logility, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.



|                                |  |  |  |                         
|------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------
|This 10th day of December, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ J. Michael Edenfield
|                                |  |  |  | J. Michael Edenfield    
|                                |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer 

The undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of Logility, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge
and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2007 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Logility, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.



|                                |  |  |  |                        
|------------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|This 10th day of December, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Vincent C. Klinges 
|                                |  |  |  | Vincent C. Klinges     
|                                |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Logility, Inc. and will be retained by Logility, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The information in this Exhibit 32.1 shall not be deemed filed
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such
filing.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 07-0532

FLORA L. KERNEA, APPELLANT,

V.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, 

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. 

Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SCHOELEN, Judges.

O R D E R

In an August 24, 2009, joint motion for remand (JMR), the parties propose that the Court set

aside the February 1, 2007, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision on appeal. They contend

that the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons and bases for its determinations that (1)

the appellant was not entitled to enhanced DIC under a theory of "hypothetical entitlement"; and (2)

the appellant failed to file a claim alleging clear and unmistakable error in a prior rating decision.

The Court agrees that the assertions of error are supported by the record. The motion will be

granted, the Board decision set aside, and the matter remanded for further adjudication. On remand,

the appellant is permitted to submit additional evidence and argument to support her claim. See Kay

v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 529 (2002). Additionally, on remand, the Board must ensure compliance

with terms of the JMR or explain why such terms will not be fulfilled. See Forcier v. Nicholson,

19 Vet.App. 414, 426 (2006). The Secretary is expected to provide expeditious treatment pursuant

to 38 U.S.C. § 7112.

On consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Secretary will include a copy of the parties' motion and a copy of this

order in the claims file. It is further

ORDERED that the joint motion for remand is GRANTED. The February 1, 2007, Board

decision is SET ASIDE and the matter is REMANDED for readjudication in accordance with the

bases for remand included in the joint motion. Under Rule 41(b) of the Court's Rules of Practice and

Procedure, this order is the mandate of the Court.

DATED: August 27, 2009 PER CURIAM.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6102 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6102

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2010

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to 
    extend the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to enter into 
     multiyear contracts for F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G aircraft.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR F/A-18E, F/A-18F, AND 
              EA-18G AIRCRAFT.

    (a) Extension of Certification.--Paragraph (2) of section 128(a) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 
111-84; 123 Stat. 2217) is amended by striking ``a reference to March'' 
and inserting ``a reference to September''.
    (b) Required Authority.--Such section 128 is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Required Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, with respect to a multiyear contract entered into under subsection 
(a), this section shall be deemed to meet the requirements under 
subsection (i)(3) and (l)(3) of section 2306b of title 10, United 
States Code.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 31.2

                     RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A) CERTIFICATION
                         BY PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Linden J H Boyne, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Bioaccelerate Holdings,
Inc

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report.

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's 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 evaluations; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change 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 annual 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 officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's 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 registrant's 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 registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.


                            /s/ Linden J H Boyne.
                            -----------------------
                            Linden J H Boyne
                            Chief Financial Officer
                            September 16, 2005


                                    - 135 -
(86 South. 926)

#### Ex parte HORTON.

(8 Div. 208.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 15, 1920.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1920.)

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals.

Tennis Tidwell, of Albany, for appellant.

J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SOMERVILLE, J.

Petition of Ada Horton for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered in the appeal of Ada Horton v. State of Alabama, 88 South. 241. Writ denied.
#### Rodd FERNANDES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF PAHRUMP, dba Pahrump Valley Fire-Rescue Services; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-15036.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Jason Bach, Esquire, The Bach Law Firm LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeffrey I. Pitegoff, Esquire, Pitegoff Law Office, Las Vegas, NV, Thomas Peter Beko, Esquire, Brent L. Ryman, Erickson, Thorpe & Swainston, Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rodd Fernandes appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action *688brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Knievel v. ESPN,*398 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Fernandes’s RICO claim because he did not allege facts suggesting a pattern of racketeering activity or any nexus to interstate commerce. *See Turner v. Cook,*362 F.3d 1219, 1229 (9th Cir.2004) (“In order to constitute a ‘pattern,’ there must be at least two acts of racketeering activity within ten years of one another.”) (citation omitted); *Musick v. Burke,*913 F.2d 1390, 1398 (9th Cir.1990) (to state a civil RICO claim, the enterprise engaged in the racketeering activity must have a nexus to interstate commerce); *see also Howard v. Am. Online Inc.,*208 F.3d 741, 751 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate RICO existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of RICO.”).

The district court properly dismissed Fernandes’s equal protection claim because he did not allege facts suggesting that defendants acted with discriminatory intent or treated him differently from similarly situated individuals. *See Squaw Valley Dev. Co. v. Goldberg,*375 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir.2004) (“plaintiff can establish a class of one equal protection claim by demonstrating that [he] has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), *overruled in part on other grounds as stated in Action Apartment Ass’n, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd.,*509 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.2007).

Contrary to Fernandes’s contentions, the district court acted within its discretion by denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. *See Ventress v. Japan Airlines,*603 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir.2010).

Fernandes’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Ceragon Networks Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of our knowledge:

|1. | 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.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|By:   /s/ Ira Palti
Ira PaltiPresident and Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|By:  /s/ Naftali Idan 
Naftali IdanExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 26, 2008

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



---

---
REGINALD BRYANT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4157

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 1, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

William E. Davis, Judge.

Reginald Bryant, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 30, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00798-CV 

VOICECOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC, AMVENSYS CAPITAL GROUP, LLC 

N/K/A LIMELIGHT CAPITAL, LLC AND INTELLIVERSE TELECOM (PVT) 

LIMITED D/B/A INTELLIVERSE - INDIA, Appellants 

V. 

BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-14771 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Partida-Kipness 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Appellants’ brief is overdue. On September 18, 2019, we directed appellants to file their 

brief by September 30, 2019. We cautioned appellants that the failure to file a brief by that date 

would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellants have not 

filed their brief. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). 

190798F.P05 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

VOICECOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS, 

LLC, AMVENSYS CAPITAL GROUP, 

LLC N/K/A LIMELIGHT CAPITAL, LLC 

AND INTELLIVERSE TELECOM (PVT) 

LIMITED D/B/A INTELLIVERSE - 

INDIA, Appellants 

No. 05-19-00798-CV V. 

BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & 

CAPITAL, LLC, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-14771. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, 

Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC recover its 

costs of this appeal from appellants Voicecom Telecommunications, LLC, Amvensys Capital 

Group, LLC N/K/A Limelight Capital, LLC and Intelliverse Telecom (Pvt) Limited D/B/A 

Intelliverse - India. 

Judgment entered October 30, 2019
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




EXECUTIVE BONUSES 2010



The 2010 corporate objectives that could trigger bonus payments under the 2010 Bonus Plan are:



1. Transition toward profitability in commercial operations



2. Accumulate a portfolio of strategic assets



3. Increase stockholder value



The bonus payable is equal to the weighting percentage (0-150%) multiplied by the ‘target bonus’
amount as defined below. Note that whether or not these objectives are met and the relative
weighting of the objectives is left to the discretion of the Compensation Committee. However, to
be eligible for consideration the events must occur on or before December 31, 2010. The bonus is
payable upon the Compensation Committee’s determination that the objectives for the bonus have been
met, in part or in full, at the Committee’s discretion. The weighting (0-150%) is determined at the
discretion of the Compensation Committee. This weighting determines the bonus to be paid to the
Chief Executive Officer, and when multiplied against the target bonus amounts for the other named
executive officers creates the pool of funds to be distributed amongst those other named executive
officers, at the Committee’s discretion. For executives other than the Chief Executive Officer,
the Compensation Committee will solicit and consider evaluations and recommendations submitted to
the Compensation Committee by the Chief Executive Officer regarding individual performance when
determining the bonus payment. Once a pool has been created by achievement, in whole or in part, of
the 2010 corporate objectives and determination of the Compensation Committee of the weighting
percentage, the Committee can determine a bonus payment for each of the other named executive
officers that ranges from zero to any maximum amount such that the total paid to the other named
executive officers in aggregate does not exceed the value of the pool.



Payments under the 2010 Bonus Plan, if any, are contingent upon the Company’s achievement of
certain corporate objectives described above, and the relevant officers’ continued employment with
the Company on the date of payment.



The ‘Target Bonus’ amounts are defined as:



For Srinivas Rao, Mike Gendreau:



25% x annual base salary



For Sabrina Johnson



35% x annual base salary



For Jay Kranzler:






 









 







66 2/3% x annual base salary





	 	 	The bonus amounts are calculated based on annual base salaries as of the earlier of the
achievement of the objective or December 31, 2010.
	 
	 	 	Examples to illustrate bonus calculation formula:






	 	1)	 	Assuming the objective is met with 50% weighting, the bonus to Jay Kranzler
would be 50% x 66 2/3% x annual base salary.
	 
	 	 	 	The pool would be calculated as:
	 
	 	 	 	50% x ((25% x Rao annual base salary)+(25% x Gendreau annual base salary)+(35% x
Johnson annual base salary))
	 
	 	2)	 	Assuming the objective is met with 150% weighting, the bonus to Jay Kranzler
would be 150% x 66 2/3% x annual base salary.
	 
	 	 	 	The pool would be calculated as:
	 
	 	 	 	150% x ((25% x Rao annual base salary)+(25% x Gendreau annual base salary)+(35% x
Johnson annual base salary))
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00920

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.R.F. , a Child

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 01502

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Order of Termination

is AFFIRMED.

No costs of appeal are assessed because appellant is indigent.

SIGNED April 15, 2 015.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 of Sanofi (No. 333-165418, No. 333-157685, No. 333-149203, No. 333-145074, No. 333-139555, No.333-125490, No. 333-121584, No. 333-121583 and No. 333-107238) and theRegistration Statement on Form F-3 of Sanofi (No. 333-165472) of our reports dated March 5, 2012 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 20-F.

Neuilly-sur-Seine, France 

March5, 2012 

PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit 

Xavier Cauchois
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,210
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                       557
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,144
<PP&E>                                           3,368
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,937
<BONDS>                                         15,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,159
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,176
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,194
<SALES>                                         14,491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,491
<CGS>                                           14,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  75<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (44)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (24)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (24)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
<FN>
<F1>VALUE IS FOR INCOME INTEREST EXPENSE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>