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

Certifications of Periodic Report by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avatech Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, 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 result of operations of the Company
for the periods reflected therein.



|                        |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                        | 
|Date: February 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Donald R. Walsh                                 
|                        |  | Donald R. Walsh                                     
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer                             
|                        | 
|                        |  | /s/ Lawrence Rychlak                                
|                        |  | Lawrence Rychlak                                    
|                        |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DUNCAN JASON SMITH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-951

[August 24, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 50-2010-CF-007004-AXXX-MB.

Duncan Jason Smith, Madison, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 6642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1640]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1 GRB-5(C3)B.
    Date: January 29, 2001.
    Time: 3 PM to 5 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Francisco O. Calvo, Acting Chief, Review Branch, 
DEA, NIDDK, Room 655, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, National Institutes 
of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, (301) 594-8897.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1 GRB-1(C2).
    Date: February 8, 2001.
    Time: 2 PM to 4 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: 6707 Democracy Blvd., 2 Democracy Plaza, RM 653, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Carolyn Miles, Scientific Review Administrator, 
Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Room 641, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, 
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-8897.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 12, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-1640 Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Andrew JONES, et al., petitioners, v. James J. PARMLEY, et al.

No. 17-928.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# C_2009244EN.01001002.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/10

---

Action brought on 30 July 2009 — CNIPT v Commission

(Case T-302/09)

2009/C 244/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Comité national interprofessionnel de la pomme de terre (CNIPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order (‘CVLs’) to be taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.

1

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-293/09 CNIEL v Commission.

CNIEL

Commission

In addition, the applicant submits that there is a breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since the Commission dealt in generally and in the same way with a number of distinct CVL schemes.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.

1

---
# C_2009069EN.01004701.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/47

---

Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Storck v OHIM (Mouse-shaped chocolate)

(Case T-13/09)

(2009/C 69/103)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: August Storck KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 12 November 2008 (R 185/2006-4); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 12 November 2008 (R 185/2006-4); and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: a three-dimensional mark, which represents a mouse made out of chocolate, for goods in Class 30 (Application No 4 490 447).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that the trade mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
Martin E. ROCK, petitioner, v. CITY OF DEARBORN HEIGHTS, MICHIGAN.

No. 17-7392.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
KRATON CORPORATION 
2016 EQUITY AND CASH INCENTIVE PLAN


WHEREAS, Kraton Corporation (the “Company”) has established and maintains the Kraton Corporation 2016 Equity and Cash Incentive Plan (“Plan”); and
WHEREAS, under Section 13 of the Plan, the Company may amend the Plan by action of the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, subject to shareholder approval at the annual meeting on May 23, 2018 (the “Effective Date”), the Board amends the Plan as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 5(a) of the Plan is amended by replacing the number “1,550,000” with the number “3,350,000.”


		
	2.
	The Plan shall remain in full force and effect and, as amended by this Amendment, is ratified and affirmed in all respects.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of this 23rd day of May 2018, and effective as of the Effective Date set forth above.


KRATON CORPORATION


By:     /s/ James L. Simmons      
Name:     James L. Simmons
		
	Title:   
	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
# C_2011370EN.01001201.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Essen-NordOst v GFKL Financial Services AG

(Case C-93/10) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2(1) and 4 - Scope - Concepts of ‘supply of services effected for consideration’ and ‘economic activity’ - Sale of defaulted debts - Sale price lower than the face value of those debts - Assumption of responsibility by the purchaser for the recovery of those debts and for the risk of defaulting debtors)

2011/C 370/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Finanzamt Essen-NordOst

Appellant:

Respondent: GFKL Financial Services AG

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 4, 11A(1)(a) and 13B(d)(2) and (3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concepts of supply of services for consideration and economic activity — Factoring — Purchase of risky debts at a price calculated by reference to the probability of debtors’ default — Assumption by the factor of responsibility for recovering the debt and the risk of default

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 4 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that an operator who, at his own risk, purchases defaulted debts at a price below their face value does not effect a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) and does not carry out an economic activity falling within the scope of that directive when the difference between the face value of those debts and their purchase price reflects the actual economic value of the debts at the time of their assignment.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1

---
# C_2011103EN.01001002.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-391/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/36/EC - Exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies - Failure to transpose completely within the prescribed period)

2011/C 103/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take or to communicate within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274 of 9.10.2010.

1

---
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. 

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE 

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

EMERY GILBERT HUME, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0521 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. CR2014-103497-001 

The Honorable Daniel J. Kiley, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix 

By Joseph T. Maziarz 

Counsel for Appellee 

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix 

By Terry J. Adams 

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. HUME 

Decision of the Court 

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined. 

T H O M P S O N, Judge: 

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). 

Counsel for Emery Gilbert Hume (defendant) has advised us that, after 

searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable 

questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court conduct an 

Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity 

to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but he has not done so. 

¶2 At approximately 10:30 p.m. on January 21, 2014, police 

officers responded to a trespass call at a convenience store. Police officers 

found defendant outside of the store behaving in a paranoid manner. An 

officer conducted a search of defendant and found a folded piece of paper 

containing methamphetamine in his back pocket. 

¶3 A jury convicted defendant of one count of knowingly 

possessing or using methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, a class 4 felony. 

Prior to sentencing, defendant admitted that he had one historical prior 

felony conviction for second degree murder. The court sentenced 

defendant to four and half years incarceration and imposed $1,898 in fines. 

Defendant received 520 days of presentence incarceration credit. 

¶4 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and 

we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. 

at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were 

conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 

and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State 

v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984), defendant’s 

counsel’s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days 

from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an 

in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. 
STATE v. HUME 

Decision of the Court 

3

¶5 We affirm the conviction and sentence.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-06-00131- CR
Bobb y So r ian o, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- DC-04 -20 5638 , HO NORAB LE MICH AEL LYNCH , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Bobby Soriano seeks to a

ppeal a judgme nt of conviction for possession of less than one g ram of c ocaine . SeeTe x. He a lth& Sa fe ty Cod e Ann. § 48 1. 11 5 ( Wes t 20 03 ). Th e pr o s e n o tice of a

ppeal wa s filed ninety -three day s after sentenc e wa s imposed. See T e x. R . App . P. 26 .2 (a )( 1) ; se eals o S

laton v . S tate , 9 81 S.W. 2d

20 8 ( Te x . Cr im . Ap p. 19 98 ); Ol iv o v . S tate , 918 S.W. 2d 51 9, 52 2- 23 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). In a dd iti on , th e tr ia l c ourt ha s c e rt if ie d th at th is i s a plea ba rg ain ca se and Soriano ha s no rig ht of appe al. SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2), ( d).2 The a ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Mar ch 22, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Daryl FRYER, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-7409.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
# C_2011080EN.01001801.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2011 — Oyster Cosmetics v OHIM — Kadabell (Oyster cosmetics)

(Case T-437/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Oyster cosmetics - Earlier Community figurative mark Kadus oystra AUTO STOP PROTECTION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 80/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Oyster Cosmetics SpA (Castiglione delle Stiviere, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kadabell GmbH & Co. KG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2009 (Case R 1367/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Kadabell GmbH & Co. KG and Oyster Cosmetics SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Oyster Cosmetics SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Oyster Cosmetics SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.

1

---
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (No. 333-155301) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
33-62829, 33-63249, 333-03275, 333-03277, 333-118732, 333-19241, 333-77615,
333-59854, 333-108384, 333-133434, 333-135893, 333-135894 and 333-135897) of
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation of our report dated February 12, 2009
relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form
10-K.
  
  
 Fort
      Worth, Texas
 February
      13, 2009