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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Electro-Sensors, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Bradley D. Slye, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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.

| | October 24, 2005                                    | By: | /s/ Bradley D. Slye
| | --------------------------------------------------- | --- | -------------------
| | Bradley D. Slye                                    
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|

---
# C_2017178EN.01002602.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/26

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — RV v Commission

(Case T-167/17 R)

((Interim measures - Civil Service - Placed on leave and automatically retired - Application for a stay of execution - Not urgent))

(2017/C 178/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RV (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2016 placing the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and retiring the applicant automatically with effect from 1 April 2017.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906

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 Synta Pharmaceuticals Corp., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-K") 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-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 11, 2010

/s/ SAFI R. BAHCALL, PH.D. Safi R. Bahcall, Ph.D. President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)Dated: March 11, 2010

/s/ KEITH S. EHRLICH, C.P.A. Keith S. Ehrlich, C.P.A. Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Chief Financial Officer
(principal accounting and financial 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.

---



QuickLinks
# C_2019383EN.01005901.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/59

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2019 — Trasys International and Axianseu — Digital Solutions v EASA

(Case T-741/17) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - IT application and infrastructure management services - Rejection of a tenderer’s offer and award of the contract to other tenderers - Obligation to state reasons - Assessment of the existence of abnormally low tenders - Characteristics and relative merits of the tenders accepted - Request for a statement of reasons from a tenderer who is not in an exclusion situation and whose tender is compliant with the procurement documents)

(2019/C 383/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Trasys International GEIE (Brussels, Belgium) and Axianseu — Digital Solutions SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by L. Masson and G. Tilman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by S. Rostren, E. Tellado Vásquez and H. Köppen, acting as Agents, and V. Ost, M. Vanderstraeten and F. Tulkens, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) of 28 August 2017 rejecting the tender submitted by the consortium of applicants in call for tenders EASA.2017.HVP.08 relating to a public service contract concerning IT application and infrastructure management services in Cologne (Germany), and the award of the successive contract to three other tenderers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) of 28 August 2017 rejecting the tender submitted by the consortium of Trasys International GEIE and Axianseu — Digital Solutions SA in call for tenders EASA.2017.HVP.08 relating to a public service contract concerning IT application and infrastructure management services in Cologne (Germany), and the award of the successive contract to three other tenderers; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) of 28 August 2017 rejecting the tender submitted by the consortium of Trasys International GEIE and Axianseu — Digital Solutions SA in call for tenders EASA.2017.HVP.08 relating to a public service contract concerning IT application and infrastructure management services in Cologne (Germany), and the award of the successive contract to three other tenderers;

| 2. | Orders EASA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EASA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

               Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of UnitedFinancial Corp. on Form S-8 of our report dated February 25, 2005, appearing in the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of United Financial Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

/s/ McGladrey &Pullen, LLP 

Minneapolis, Minnesota
# C_2005194EN.01000401.xml

| 9.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/4

---

SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC HOLIDAYS FOR 2006

SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC HOLIDAYS FOR 2006

(2005/C 194/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 2 January | Monday, day following New Year's Day |
| --- | --- |
| 13 April | Maundy Thursday |
| 14 April | Good Friday |
| 17 April | Easter Monday |
| 1 May | Monday, Labour Day |
| 9 May | Tuesday, Anniversary of the Declaration made by President Robert Schuman in 1950 |
| 25 May | Thursday, Ascension Day |
| 26 May | Friday, day following Ascension Day |
| 5 June | Whit Monday |
| 21 July | Friday, Belgian National Holiday |
| 15 August | Tuesday, Assumption Day |
| 1 November | Wednesday, All Saints' Day |
| 2 November | Thursday, All Souls' Day |
| 25 December to | Monday | 5 days — Christmas and end of year |
| 29 December | Friday |
| TOTAL: 18 days |

2 January

Monday, day following New Year's Day

13 April

Maundy Thursday

14 April

Good Friday

17 April

Easter Monday

1 May

Monday, Labour Day

9 May

Tuesday, Anniversary of the Declaration made by President Robert Schuman in 1950

25 May

Thursday, Ascension Day

26 May

Friday, day following Ascension Day

5 June

Whit Monday

21 July

Friday, Belgian National Holiday

15 August

Tuesday, Assumption Day

1 November

Wednesday, All Saints' Day

2 November

Thursday, All Souls' Day

25 December to

Monday

5 days — Christmas and end of year

29 December

Friday

TOTAL: 18 days

The abovementioned dates also apply to Luxembourg, except that Friday 21 July is replaced by Friday 23 June, Luxembourg National Holiday.

Work will resume as normal on Wednesday 3 January 2007.

Without prejudice to the schedule of public holidays for 2007, Tuesday 2 January 2007 will be a holiday.

The Commission reserves the right to modify the decisions, should the needs of service so require.

---
#### Cynthia A. Bell, Appellant, v 24-26 East 82nd Street Corporation et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 9, 2012;

decided February 21, 2012

Reported below, 2011 NY Slip Op 75563(U).

Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal, insofar as taken against defendants Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, Ronald Spencer, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLL Ogden Lewis and Larry Jacobs, dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [a]); appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10333

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JOHN THOMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:95-CV-2231-H)

February 12, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER

PER CURIAM:*

Federal prisoner John Thompson appeals the district court’s

denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Thompson argues that his trial

attorney was ineffective because he labored under a conflict of
2

interest that prevented him from effectively cross-examining the

government’s principal witness. He also contends that the evidence

was insufficient to support his conviction because the government

failed to prove that the financial institutions he robbed were

federally insured.

We have carefully reviewed the record and the briefs.

Thompson has failed to show that there was an actual conflict of

interest that adversely affected his attorney’s performance at

trial. United States v. Placente, 81 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir.

1996). Thompson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was

never raised in his § 2255 motion filed before the district court.

Because the issue is being raised for the first time on appeal, it

will not be considered. See United States v. Madkins, 14 F.3d 277,

279 (5th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment denying Thompson’s

§ 2255 motion is AFFIRMED.
#### Hannibal Nganga WANGUHU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-1877.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 17, 2006.

Decided: June 6, 2006.

*329Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, John W. Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Hannibal Nganga Wanguhu, a native and citizen of Kenya, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen and reconsider removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Wanguhu’s motion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (b) (2006).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In Re: Wanguhu,*No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Jul. 26, 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.*
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [NAFTA-4617]

Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-118) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 USC 2331), an investigation was initiated on March 9, 2001, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at NAPCO Button, Inc., Coppell, Texas. Workers produced dyed buttons.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 16th day of May, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-13224  Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
144 So. 21

#### NATIONAL SURETY CO. v. RUDDER et al.

8 Div. 417.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 6, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1932.

*550Ball & Ball, of Montgomery, for appellant.

D. P. Wimberly, of Seottsboro, and Haralson & Son, of .Ft. Payne, for appellees.

ANDERSON, C. J.

This appeal was taken from a decree of the circuit court overruling a demurrer to a petition to the said court, pending the administration of the estate, for the rendition of a decree against the sureties of the executors against whom a decree had been rendered, and for the issuance of an execution against said sureties as one had been issued against the principals and returned no property found.

 The petition in question is not such a bill in equity or cross-bill as authorizes an appeal from a ruling on a demurrer thereto as provided by section 6079 of the Code of 1923, and this appeal must be dismissed. It is sufficient to suggest, however, that an appeal was taken in the main case, which has been this day affirmed, and the trial court has the power to render a decree against the surety and order execution upon a return of the execution nulla bona against the principals. Section 6052 of the Code; Steele v. Graves, 68 Ala. 17; Martin v. Tally, 72 Ala. 30. This rule or statute is applicable to the administration of estates in chancery as well as the probate court.

Appeal dismissed;

GARDNER, THOMAS, and FOSTER, JJ., ! concur.
#### STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. v. FORTIN

No. 296PA98

Case below: 129 N.C.App. 839

Petition by plaintiff for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 5 November 1998.
Exhibit 31.2  Section 302 Certification of Chief Financial Officer  I, Eduard Korsinsky, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Green Mountain Recovery, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: May 15, 2008  /s/ Eduard Korsinsky Eduard Korsinsky Title: Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE, LLC

400 South 4th Street | 130 Grain Exchange Building | Minneapolis, MN 55415

612-321-7101

mgex.com

Via Portal Submission 

August 4, 2023

 MGEX Submission No. 23-42

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments Pursuant to Regulation 40.6(d)

Dear Secretary Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Exchange Act Section 5c and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Regulation 

40.6(d), the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, LLC (“MGEX”) submits this Weekly Notification of the following 

rule amendments made effective during the week of July 24, 2023:

• July 24, 2023 Memo to MGEX Clearing Members reminding them of the 7:30 a.m. CT Friday, July 

28, 2023 deadline to report offsets of August 2023 SPIKES Volatility Index futures, and Hard Red 

Spring Wheat Index, Hard Red Winter Wheat Index, Soft Red Winter Wheat Index, National Corn 

Index and National Soybean Index futures and options, effective for the Thursday, July 27, 2023

trade date.

A copy of the above-referenced memo is available at http://www.mgex.com under the “Announcements” 

tab. If there are any questions regarding this submission, please contact me at (612) 321-7141 or 

cstuhlmann@mgex.com. 

Sincerely,

Carmen M. Stuhlmann

Associate Counsel
# C_2020279EN.01000601.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — SC Terracult SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Arad — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Juridice 5, ANAF Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara Serviciul de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor

(Case C-835/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Invoice correction - Tax invoiced incorrectly - Refund of tax paid but not due - Reverse charge mechanism for VAT - Transactions relating to a tax period that has already been the subject of a tax inspection - Fiscal neutrality - Principle of effectiveness - Proportionality)

(2020/C 279/08)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Terracult SRL

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Arad — Serviciul Inspecţie Fiscală Persoane Juridice 5, ANAF Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara Serviciul de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system for value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2013/43/EU of 22 July 2013, and the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national administrative practice preventing a taxable person that has carried out transactions which subsequently proved to be covered by the reverse charge mechanism for value added tax (VAT) from correcting the invoices relating to those transactions and relying on them by correcting an earlier tax return or submitting a new tax return taking account of the correction thus made, with a view to obtaining a refund of the VAT improperly invoiced and paid by that taxable person, on the ground that the period in respect of which those transactions were carried out had already been the subject of a tax inspection at the end of which the competent tax authority had issued a tax assessment which, not having been contested by that taxable person, had become final.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---
# C_2018427EN.01007701.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/77

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — WH v EUIPO

(Case T-819/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - 2016 appraisal - Deletion of certain comments from the appraisal report - Inadmissibility)

(2018/C 427/103)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: WH (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU requesting that the General Court order EUIPO to delete from the applicant’s appraisal report for the year 2016 all criticism concerning the applicant’s communication style, inasmuch as it constitutes a misrepresentation and infringes the applicant’s fundamental right to express ideas and opinions freely.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | WH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

WH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.

---