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





CERTIFICATION


OF


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, each of the undersigned officers of PureDepth,
      Inc.
      do hereby certify that:





(a)
      the
      quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A No. 1 of PureDepth, Inc. for the period
      ended October 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated:
      December 14, 2007








/s/
      Thomas L. Marcus





Thomas
      L.
      Marcus


Chief
      Executive Officer





/s/
      Jonathan J. McCaman





Jonathan
      J. McCaman


Chief
      Financial Officer and


Chief
      Accounting Officer
**Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 April 2008 – Focus Magazin Verlag v OHIM and Merant**

**(Case C‐344/07 P)**

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Likelihood of confusion – Word sign ‘FOCUS’

Appeals – Pleas in law – Incorrect assessment of the evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice,
Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 49)

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04 | Merant | v | OHIM | , by which that Court annulled decision R 542/2002-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2004 upholding an action against the opposition decision which partially rejected the application for registration of Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘MICRO FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 41 and 42 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH to pay the costs. |
# Official Journal C 223A/21 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 223A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5921 June 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 223A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5921 June 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European ParliamentCouncilEuropean Commission |
| 2016/C 223 A/01 | Recruitment notice EUPP/1/S — Director of the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations in the sense of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 (Function group AD, grade 12) — Temporary Staff member (Male or female) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European ParliamentCouncilEuropean Commission

2016/C 223 A/01

Recruitment notice EUPP/1/S — Director of the Authority for European political parties and European political foundations in the sense of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 (Function group AD, grade 12) — Temporary Staff member (Male or female)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
State v. Larry McLeod Pulley

42P04-9

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Larry McLeod Pulley, For Larry McLeod Pulley.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, For State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of November 2016 by Defendant for Formal Complaint Against the Office of the Clerk:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
# C_2008079EN.01001101.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/11

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de prud'hommes de Beauvais (France)) — Olivier Polier v Najar EURL

(Case C-361/07) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Convention No 158 of the International Labour Organisation - European Social Charter - Dismissal of an employee without valid reason - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2008/C 79/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de prud'hommes de Beauvais (France)

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Polier

Applicant:

Defendant: Najar EURL

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil de Prud'Hommes de Beauvais — Interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 30 and 33), the European Social Charter (Articles 24 and 27) and Convention No 158 of the International Labour Organisation on termination of employment — Dismissal of an employee without valid reason — Whether national legislation is valid in the light of the abovementioned provisions

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions posed by the Conseil de prud'hommes de Beauvais by decision of 9 July 2007.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01051101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/511 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/511

---

(2004/C 78 E/0532)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3289/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Portuguese workers without rights in the North Sea

Subject:

Various workers, including Portuguese nationals, have been working on North Sea oil platforms in the Dutch sector, some of them for over ten years, in the Catering Logistic Management branch, without being granted equal rights with local workers.

The argument used for this discrimination namely that they officially reside in Portugal and work two weeks on and two weeks off is simply inadmissible.

The Dutch company does not sign them up for social security, nor pay their travel expenses; nor do they have any social rights (family allowance, unemployment benefit, compensation for accidents at work, etc.).

Given that the Netherlands are an EU Member State, how can the failure of Dutch companies comply with the most elementary workers' rights be justified?

What measures will be taken to review the situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

(4 December 2003)

The Commission would like to emphasise first of all that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) coordinates the national social security systems of the Member States in order to ensure that persons moving within the Union enjoy the highest standard of social protection. This Regulation includes, in particular, a set of rules establishing the applicable social security legislation in situations where workers have links with two or more Member States. These rules are mandatory and do not allow insured persons to choose the social security legislation which they would prefer to see applied.

1

In order to establish which legislation is applicable, the Commission intends to ask the Dutch authorities for an explanation to determine whether this is a case of the posting of workers in the context of the provision of services and whether Community law has been properly observed.

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**A.D.H.,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 921 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 8th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this m atter.** 

**Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
Emma Renee Harmon Thru Her Guardian ad Litem Keira Harmon, Plaintiff, v. Ann Krueger Harmon, Defendant.

No. COA16-728

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

REVERSED.
# Fourth Court of Appea ls

San Antonio, Texas

July 28, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00436

- CR & 04

- 17

- 00437

- CR

David Stuart BISHOP

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR3325 & 2015CR3326 Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Court reporter Amy L. Hinds’s motion for extension of time to file the record is granted. We order the record due August 21, 2017

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

cou rt on this 28th day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

	

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 

Pursuant to Section 906 

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Tripos, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(a)	the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the Year Ended December 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

 

 

	/s/ John P. McAlister
	John P. McAlister

	Chief Executive Officer

	March 31, 2004

 

	/s/ B. James Rubin
	B. James Rubin

	Chief Financial Officer

	March 31, 2004
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134805 & (36) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. WARREN M. ROBERTSON, JR., Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 134805 

 COA: 263067 
 WCAC: 02-000399 

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, 

n/k/a CHRYSLER, LLC, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2007 judgment of the Court 

of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to 

appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals opinion in part with regard to its application 

of Sington v Chrysler Corp, 467 Mich 144 (2002), and the Workers’ Compensation 

Appellate Commission’s determination that Sington is inapplicable to this case, and we 

REMAND this case to the Board of Magistrates for further proceedings regarding 

disability consistent with the standards set forth in Stokes v Chrysler LLC (Docket No. 

132648), 481 Mich 266 (2008). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed 

by this Court. We do not retain jurisdiction.

 CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

WEAVER, J. (dissenting). 

I dissent from the order partially vacating the Court of Appeals judgment with 

regard to its application of Sington v Chrysler Corp, 467 Mich 144 (2002), and the 

Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission’s determination that Sington is 

inapplicable to this case, and remanding this case to the magistrate for further 

proceedings regarding disability consistent with the standards set forth in Stokes v 

Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich 266 (2008). 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

2 

Because I dissented from the majority opinion in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, I vote to 

grant leave to appeal in this case to consider whether a majority of this Court reached the 

correct decision in Stokes. 

d0923 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2008 

Clerk
NUMBER 13-08-387-CR 

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

REGINALD ANDRE CALLIS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Reginald Andre Callis, attempts to appeal his conviction for possession

with intent to deliver cocaine. The trial court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case,

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On June 18, 2008, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant
2

has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to

whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the

existence of any amended certification.

On June 25, 2008, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s response

does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that

appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 16th day of October, 2008.
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS

I,  John A. Clarke, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of  Nevsun Resources Ltd.;

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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 issuer 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 issuer, 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 issuer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 evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuer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 issuer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 issuers internal control over financial reporting.

/@/ John A. Clarke



Signature

March 30, 2005



Date

Chief Executive Officer, President



Title
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 22, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00482

- CV

IN RE ESPERANZA HUGHES

,

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 03

- 54382

- CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge P residing



### O R D E R

Appellee Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC has filed a motion for rehearing and motion

for en banc reconsideration . The Court requests that the appell ants Metropolitan Life Insurance

Company and Metropolitan Tower Resources Group, Inc. file a response on or before October

12, 2016

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.2.

It is so ORDERED on September 22, 2016.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
STATE v. Michael Todd WALKER

133P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Craig M. Cooley, Attorney at Law, Cary, for Walker, Michael Todd.

Peter A. Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of May 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         129,424
<SECURITIES>                                   170,258
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,090
<INVENTORY>                                     50,769
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               490,671
<PP&E>                                          75,833
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 538,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,398
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       405,768
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   538,577
<SALES>                                        395,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               395,347
<CGS>                                          169,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  169,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               173,164
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 65,492
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,022
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,470
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,470
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Jason HUDSON

No. 100P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, Christopher Jason Hudson, for Hudson, Christopher Jason.

Adrian Dellinger, Associate Attorney General.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th of March 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 19, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40050

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FARID ARTURO CANIZALEZ-RIVERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-1332-1

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

Before SMITH, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Farid Arturo Canizalez-Rivera appeals the conviction and 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful presence

in the United States after having been deported, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Canizalez-Rivera contends that his sentence is

illegal under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct.

738 (2005), because it was imposed pursuant to a mandatory

application of the federal sentencing guidelines. CanizalezRivera, thus, alleges a “Fanfan” error. See United States v.
No. 05-40050

-2-

Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005). In the district

court, Canizalez-Rivera objected to his sentence under Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and the Government concedes that

the preserved Fanfan error is subject to review for harmless

error. 

The Government has not carried its burden of showing beyond

a reasonable doubt that the district court’s error did not affect

Canizalez-Rivera’s sentence. See Walters, 418 F.3d at 464;

United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 284-86 (5th Cir. 2005). 

We therefore VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing in

accordance with Booker. 

Canizalez-Rivera also contends that the “felony” and

“aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are

unconstitutional. Canizalez-Rivera’s constitutional challenge is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998). Although Canizalez-Rivera contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). CanizalezRivera properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light

of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here

to preserve it for further review. 

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.