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

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

   (i)   the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: August 8, 2005    /s/ Raymond D. Zinn
                         -----------------------------------
                             Raymond D. Zinn
                             Chief Executive Officer


                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

   (i)   the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: August 8, 2005       /s/ Richard D. Crowley, Jr.
                           ------------------------------
                                Richard D. Crowley
                                Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. Charles Everette HINTON

449P11-14

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Charles E. Hinton, for Hinton, Charles Everette.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of August 2016 by Defendant for Ex Parte Inquiry into Restraints on Liberty by Judicial Writ of Habeas Corpus:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                DOCUMENTUM, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA; UNAUDITED)



                                                   Three Months Ended
                                                        March 31,
                                            --------------------------------
                                                1997              1996
                                            --------------    --------------

Net Income                                  $       1,117     $         532
                                            ==============    ==============

Primary shares outstanding:
      Weighted average shares outstanding
           during the period                       14,174            13,090
                                                   
      Common stock equivalent shares                  706             1,042
                                            --------------    --------------
                                                   14,880            14,132
                                            ==============    ==============


Primary net income per
      common stock and common stock
      equivalent share (1)                  $        0.08     $        0.04
                                            ==============    ==============



(1)   Fully diluted earnings per share is not required to be presented
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1



                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                        Quarter Ended                 Year Ended
                                                         December 25,                December 25,
                                                   ----------------------------------------------------
                                                      1996          1995          1996          1995
                                                      ----          ----          ----          ----

<S>                                                <C>           <C>          <C>           <C>        
Net Income                                         $6,713,000    $6,599,000   $31,555,000   $30,446,000


Shares used to compute
 earnings per share                                19,222,200    19,215,626    19,220,238    19,215,156


Earnings Per Share                                      $0.35         $0.34         $1.64         $1.58


Shares used to compute
 earnings per share including
 common stock equivalents - Primary Basis          19,378,513    19,395,283    19,377,981    19,388,838


Primary Earnings Per Share                              $0.35         $0.34         $1.63         $1.57


Shares used to compute
 earnings per share including
 common stock equivalents - Fully Diluted Basis    19,391,620    19,395,283    19,389,658    19,388,838


Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share                        $0.35         $0.34         $1.63         $1.57


</TABLE>

<PAGE>
Sasha-al LEE, Plaintiff, v. Donald Mac MOORE, Sr., Defendant.

No. COA16-415

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED.
September 3 2008
Exhibit 32.1  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 Quarterly Report of Develocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lori Laney, 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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.   /s/ Lori Laney Lori Laney Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer June 15, 2009
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0584n.06

Filed: September 30, 2008

No. 07-6186

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ELAM & MILLER, P.S.C., 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NATIONAL CITY BANK OF KENTUCKY;

et al.,

Defendants,

CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Before: MARTIN, ROGERS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Consolidated Mortgage, Inc. appeals the district court’s

order substituting Elam & Miller, P.S.C. as the plaintiff in this case and the district court’s order

granting Elam & Miller’s motion for summary judgment. After reviewing the record, the parties’

briefs, and the applicable law, this court affirms the district court’s decision for the reasons stated

in Judge Coffman’s summary judgment opinion and order. Elam & Miller, P.S.C. v. National City

Bank of Ky., No. 04-239-JBC, 2007 WL 2702332 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 12, 2007). The district court
No. 07-6186

Elam & Miller, P.S.C. v. National City Bank of Kentucky, et al.

- 2 -

properly substituted Elam & Miller as the plaintiff in this case and granted summary judgment in

favor of Elam & Miller. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to §906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of CP Limited Partnership (the “Company”),hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to §906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of CP Limited Partnership on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the“Form 10-Q”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  August 8, 2003 | By:    | /s/ REES F. DAVIS, JR.      |
|---------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                            |   |                             |
|                            | Name:  | **Rees F. Davis, Jr.**      |
|                            | Title: | **Chief Executive Officer** |
STATE v. David Michael REED

365A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2016

Paul E. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Reed, David Michael.

E. Burke Haywood, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*248The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of October 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of October 2016."
Notice of Effectiveness Dated November 17, 2010



 Exhibit 10.1 
 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 
 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 TAMPA DIVISION 
  

			
	In re:	  	Chapter 11
		
	ACCENTIA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS,	  	Case No. 8:08-bk-17795-KRM
	INC., et al.,	  	
		  	(Jointly Administered)
	 Debtors.
	  	
	_____________________________________________________/	  	

 NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF FIRST AMENDED JOINT PLAN 

OF REORGANIZATION OF ACCENTIA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 
 ANALYTICA INTERNATIONAL, INC., TEAMM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 
 ACCENTRX,
INC., AND ACCENTIA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, INC. 
 UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 11, UNITED STATES CODE DATED 

AS OF AUGUST 16, 2010, AS MODIFIED 
 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Effective Date of the First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Analytica International, Inc., TEAMM Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
AccentRx, Inc., and Accentia Specialty Pharmacy, Inc. under Chapter 11 of Title 11, United States Code dated as of August 16, 2010, as modified, occurred on November 17, 2010. 

Dated: November 17, 2010 
  

	
	 /s/ Charles A. Postler

	Charles A. Postler (Florida Bar No. 455318)
	STICHTER, RIEDEL, BLAIN & PROSSER, P.A.
	110 East Madison Street, Suite 200
	Tampa, Florida 33602
	 PH        (813) 229-0144

	 FAX     (813) 229-1811

	Attorneys for the Debtors









 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Effective Date of First Amended Joint
Plan of Reorganization of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Analytica International, Inc., TEAMM Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AccentRx, Inc., and Accentia Specialty Pharmacy, Inc. under Chapter 11 of Title 11, United States Code Dated as of
August 16, 2010, as Modified has been furnished on this 17th day of November, 2010, by CM/ECF Transmission to the United States Trustee, 501 East Polk Street, Suite 1200, Tampa, Florida 33602, and by U.S. Mail or CM/ECF Transmission to all
parties set forth on the Master Service List attached hereto as Exhibit A. 
  

	
	 /s/ Charles A. Postler

	Charles A. Postler



  
 2
# C_2007082EN.01005701.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/57

---

Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Caló v Commission

(Case F-14/07)

(2007/C 82/120)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Giuseppe Caló (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision to dismiss the applicant's candidature for the post of Director of the ‘Business Statistics ’Directorate of the Statistics Office of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to dismiss the applicant's candidature for the post of Director of the ‘Business Statistics ’Directorate of the Statistics Office of the European Communities;

| — | annul the decision to appoint Mr. X to that post; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to appoint Mr. X to that post;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the token sum of EUR 1 by way of damages for a breach of administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the token sum of EUR 1 by way of damages for a breach of administration;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the defendant, challenged before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities the decision to re-assign him to the duties of Principal Adviser to the DG to which he was assigned (1) and the decision to reject his candidature for the post of Director in the same DG (2), and before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (3), the decisions, taken in connection with the reorganisation of the DG Eurostat, to reject his candidature for a Director's post. Now he is contesting the decision to reject his candidature for another post as a Director in the same DG and to appoint another candidate to that post.

1

2

3

In support of his action, the applicant relies on, inter alia, the existence of a manifest error of assessment and the infringement of: (i) Articles 7, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations; (ii) the Commission rules on the appraisal, selection and appointment of officials in higher-management posts as defined in a Communication of 22 December 2000; (iii) the rules on the appraisal of higher-management staff of Grades A1 and A2, as defined in a Communication of 10 March 2004; (iv) the vacancy notice COM/2006/164.

---

(1)  Case T-118/04 (OJ C 118 of 30.4.2004, p. 47).

1

(2)  Case T-134/04 (OJ C 146 of 29.5.2004, p. 6).

2

(3)  Case F-79/06 (OJ C 237 of 30.9.2006, p. 17).

3

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3842 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3842

 To require the Secretary of Education to conduct a feasibility study 
    for using income tax returns as the primary Federal student aid 
                              application.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2014

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Education to conduct a feasibility study 
    for using income tax returns as the primary Federal student aid 
                              application.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY ON USE OF INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURNS AS PRIMARY 
              APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL STUDENT AID.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of Education, in consultation with the 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, shall conduct a study on the 
feasibility and advantages and disadvantages of using individual income 
tax returns as the primary form of application for student aid under 
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
    (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
Commissioner, shall submit to Congress a report containing the results 
of the study conducted under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.0
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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. The undersigned have executed
this Certificate as of the 7th day of August 2009.
 /s/ Mark MorrissonMark MorrissonChief Executive Officer and Executive Director/s/ Salesh BalakSalesh BalakChief Financial Officer 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b)
under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent such
certification is explicitly incorporated by reference in such filing.
STATE of North Carolina v. Curtis Louis SANGSTER.

No. 84P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 21, 2015.

Curtis Louis Sangster, Raleigh, for Sangster, Curtis L.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th of October 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of October 2015."
fs12010ex10viii_chinawood.htm


Exhibit 10.6


 


 


Form Supplier Agreement







Agreement No.__


              Agreement Dated:__




          Party A:


          Party B:







WITNESSETH







          WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into this Agreement to define and set forth the terms and conditions of the purchase and supply between Party A and Party B;







          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements as set forth below, and in compliance with the “Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China,” it is hereby covenanted and agreed by both parties as follows:








	
Item

	
Quantity(M3)

	
Price per Unit

	
Total Price

	
Note


	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	
Total

	  	  	  	  
















	
1.  

	
Measurement. The items supplied shall be measured in cubic meter, and shall be freshly logged without apparent decay, twist, marine borer or apriona germari erode.













	
2.  

	
Tender of Goods.  Party B ensures that the items supplied are ready for tender at the execution of this Agreement. Party A shall take possession of items supplied at the destination port.













	
3.  

	
Breach of Agreement. The breaching party shall remedy the non-breaching party for all the economical loss and shall be liable for any legal consequences caused hereof.













	
4.  

	
Payment Method.  The payment shall be made to the independent third party Optimost Investment Limited within 90 days.













	
5.  

	
This Agreement is executed in two (2) copies with each party holding one copy.












 












 


 


1


 




  





  











  











           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and become effective as of the date first above written upon the signature and seals by both parties.







 


           Party A:  Simply Good Limited







 


           Party B:  __







Date:__







2
# C_2010011EN.01002201.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Torresan v OHIM — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe (CANNABIS)

(Case T-234/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark CANNABIS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Articles 7(1)(c) and 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 7(1)(c) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 11/40

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Giampietro Torresan (Rothenburg, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Recher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and O. Montalto, agents)

Defendant:

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG (Weissonohe, Germany) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and R. Cartella, lawyers)

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 517/2005-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG and Giampietro Torresan.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Giampietro Torresan to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Giampietro Torresan to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1

---
J- 59 B-2013 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**IN RE: PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT JUDGE CHRISTINE SOLOMON**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 62 EM 2013**

**Petition of the Judicial Conduct Board to Stop, Suspend or Stay Proceedings on the**  **Rule to Show Cause or, in the Alternative, for Permission to Appear, Participate and**  **Be Heard at Any Proceedings Before the Appointed Master**  **ARGUED: September 10, 2013**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 19th day of December, 2014, upon consideration o f the Joint**  **Application for Leave to File Post-Submission Communicat ion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.**  **2501(a) filed by the Judicial Conduct Board and Philad elphia Traffic Court Judge**  **Christine Solomon, indicating that the Judicial Conduct Board has investigated the**  **complaint filed against Judge Solomon and dismissed it wi th a Letter of Caution, the**  **parties’ joint petition is** GRANTED **, the** per curiam **orders entered in this matter dated May 21, 2013, and July 12, 2013 are**  VACATED **, and the rule issued upon Judge Solomon, directing her to show cause why she should not be**  **suspended for ninety days, is**  DISCHARGED

**. Justice Saylor files a Concurring Statement.**  **Chief Justice Castille files a Dissenting Statement.**
---

---

EXHIBT 10.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 333-115661) of Arel Communications and Software Ltd. of our report dated February 11,
2004, except for notes 3c and 7c for which the date is March 30, 2004, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Arel Communications and Software Ltd., for the year
ended December 31, 2003, which appears in this Form 20-F.

Kesselman & Kesselman.
Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
Tel Aviv, Israel
June 24, 2004



---

---