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




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. § 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Novelos Therapeutics, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Harry
S. Palmin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Joanne M.
Protano, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge, 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.




/s/ Harry S.
Palmin


Harry S.
Palmin


President,
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)





Date: May
17, 2010





/s/ Joanne M.
Protano


Joanne M.
Protano


Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)





Date: May
17, 2010
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**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 amended Quarterly Report of Triangle Petroleum Corporation
      (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending April 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Shaun Toker, 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,
      to my
      knowledge 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Triangle Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Triangle Petroleum
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.




/s/
                SHAUN TOKERShaun
                TokerChief
                Financial OfficerMarch
                6, 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 Town Sports International
Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert Giardina, Chief Executive 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 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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial conditions and result of operations of
the Company. /s/ Robert GiardinaTown Sports International Holdings,
Inc.Chief Executive OfficerOffice of the PresidentNovember 10, 2004
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Michael V. Mecca, asPresident and Chief Executive Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C. (the “Company”), certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(B)  the information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Dated: November 14,  2008 |                                             |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                |                                             |
|                                | /S/ Michael V. Mecca                             |
|                                | Michael V. Mecca                                 |
|                                | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal |
|                                | Executive Officer)                               |

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re City of Pearland, Texas, et al.

Appellate case number: 01-17-00902-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-77666

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

The motion for emergency relief is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Justice Jennifer Caughey_____________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Caughey (Jennings, J., dissenting).

Date: ____November 27, 2017__________________
Blake J. GEOGHAGAN, Plaintiff, v. Bernadette M. GEOGHAGAN, Defendant.

No. COA16-711

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 2, 2017

DISMISSED.
# C_2008272EN.01004902.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/49

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2008 — Hamdi v Council

(Joined Cases T-75/07 and T-363/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 272/95)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and the 
Consolidated Statements of Income for the Three Months Ended March 31, 1998 
(Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial 
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,541
<SECURITIES>                                    19,009
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                       827
<INVENTORY>                                      4,365
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,938
<PP&E>                                           7,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,997
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,760
<SALES>                                         17,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,166
<CGS>                                            6,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,997
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,079
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,918
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,918
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010274EN.01003102.xml

| 9.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/31

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 July 2010 — Tomas v European Parliament

(Cases F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08) (1)

1

(Civil service - Members of temporary staff - Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities - Termination of employment - Relationship of trust - Prior consultation of the Parliament’s Staff Committee - None)

2010/C 274/47

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: M. Michalauskas. lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Zejdová, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, the annulment of the appointing authority's decision to dismiss that applicant and, second, an application for damages for the non-material and material loss suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses applications F-116/07 and F_13/08; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses applications F-116/07 and F_13/08;

_

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to pay Mr Stanislovas Tomas the sum of EUR 1 000, for the non-material damage he has suffered; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay Mr Stanislovas Tomas the sum of EUR 1 000, for the non-material damage he has suffered;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the application in F-31/08; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the application in F-31/08;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to all of the actions F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to all of the actions F-116/07, F-13/08 and F-31/08.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 65, OJ C 142, 7.6.2008, p. 39, and OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 26

1

---
# C_2010100EN.01003502.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EMSA

(Case T-70/05) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - EMSA tendering procedures - Provision of information technology services - Rejection of the tender - Action for annulment - Jurisdiction of the Court - Non-compliance of a tender - Equal treatment - Compliance with the award criteria set out in the tender specifications or the contract notice - Establishment of sub-criteria for the award criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)

2010/C 100/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (represented by: W. de Ruiter and J. Menze, Agents and J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decisions of EMSA not to accept the tenders submitted by the applicant in tendering procedures EMSA C-1/01/04, relating to the contract entitled ‘SafeSeaNet Validation and further development’, and EMSA C-2/06/04, relating to the contract entitled ‘Specification and development of a marine casualty database, network and management system’, and to award those contracts to other tenderers

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to award the contract to the successful tenderer in tendering procedure ‘EMSA C-2/06/04’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to award the contract to the successful tenderer in tendering procedure ‘EMSA C-2/06/04’;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

1

---
1621.

#### Gorham *v.*Bankston.

Complaint, from city court of Abbeville — 'Judge Nicholson. November 13, 1908.

Argued February 24,

Decided March 16, 1909.

*E. II. Williams,*for plaintiff in error. *Hal Lawson,*contra.

Powell, J.

No error- of law is complained of. The evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 4309

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANTHONY DERRELL FOYE, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Bull , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Mark S. Davis , Chief District Judge. ( 2:16

- cr
- 00130

- MSD

- LRL

- 2 )

Submitted : January 29, 2019 Decided: February 12, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Amy L. Austin, LAW OFFICE OF AMY L. AUSTIN, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia ; Melinda R. Glaubke, SLIPOW ROBUSTO & KELLAM, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. G. Zachary Terwi lliger, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Andrew Bosse, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Ant hony Derrell Foye a ppeal s the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Foye pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to four counts of murder in aid of racketeering , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 1959(a)(1) and (2) (2012)

. I n

e xchange for Foye’s plea, the Government agreed not to seek the death penalty and to
dismiss the remaining charges in the indictment . Foye pled guilty pursuant to the agreement , and the Government filed notice that it would not seek the death penalty

. T hereafter , Foye moved to withdraw his guilty plea , which t he district court denied after an evidentiary hearing. The court sentenc ed Foye to four concurrent life sentences , as specified in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C)

. Afte r a district court accepts a guilty plea , but before sentencing, a defendant may withdraw his plea if he “can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d) (2)(B)

. “ [T] he defendant bear s the burden of demonstrating that withdrawal should be granted

. ” United States v. Dyess, 478 F.3d 224, 237 (4th Cir. 2007). We review the district court ’ s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Foye’s motion to withdraw his plea

. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Reference Numbers 333-1350 and 333-4242) of Ottawa Financial
Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated March 10, 1997, on the financial
statements of Ottawa Financial Corporation as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and
for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1996, which report
is included in the Company's 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed pursuant to
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended




                                        /s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP





Grand Rapids, Michigan
March 27, 1997
Exhibit 10.1 Director Compensation Program




Exhibit 10.1




Griffon Corporation
Director Compensation Program
(adopted as of May 1, 2014)




Each member of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Griffon Corporation (the “Company”) who is not an employee of the Company (each a “Non-employee Director”) shall receive compensation for such person’s services as a member of the Board as outlined in this Director Compensation Program.


Cash Compensation


Annual Retainer Fees


		
	•
	Annual retainer fee in the amount of $45,000


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer fee in the amount of $75,000 for the Non-executive Chairman of the Board


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer fee for the Chairmen of the following Committees:


		
	◦
	Audit – $12,500


		
	◦
	Compensation and Finance – $10,000


		
	◦
	Nominating and Corporate Governance – $5,000


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer fee in the amount of $15,000 for the Lead Independent Director




Meeting Fees


		
	•
	Fee in the amount of $1,500 for attending any meeting of the Board


		
	•
	Fee in the amount of $2,500 for attending any meeting of the Audit Committee


		
	•
	Fee in the amount of $1,500 for attending any meeting of any committee other than the Audit Committee




Equity Compensation


Upon (1) initial election to the Board and (2) upon re-election to the Board and effective as of the date of the Annual Meeting of Stockholders each year, each Non-employee Director shall be awarded a grant of 3,333 restricted shares.  The restricted shares shall vest ratably at the rate of 1/3 of the total shares on each of the first, second and third anniversary of the date of grant.  If service as a director terminates due to death or disability, or if a change in control occurs, all shares immediately vest.


The number of shares to be granted annually shall be subject to review from time to time based on the Company's stock price and financial circumstances.

1
In the MATTER OF: E.A.D.

No. COA17-133

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
State of North Carolina v. Evans Aine, II

No. 55P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016.

Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, For Aine, Evans II.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Attorney at Law, For State of North Carolina.

William R. West, District Attorney, for the State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of February 2016 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 9th of June 2016."
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,757-01

EX PARTE CHADRICK OTIS HAVEN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W13-06734-N(A) IN THE 195 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. The trial court has determined that counsel failed to timely file a

notice of appeal. We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal

of the judgment of conviction in Cause No. W13-06734-N(A)from the 195 District Court of Dallas th

County. 
2

Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so

that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the

issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant

is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence

had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should

Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of

appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: September 16, 2015

Do not publish
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



I, David A. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ David A. Smith                   
|David A. Smith                       
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|June 13, 2005
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-317-CR

LARRY DALE INGRAM APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 8 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered the “Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The

motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R.

App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). 

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: October 16, 2008
STATE v. Adam Robert JACKSON

397A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2016

Danielle Blass, Attorney at Law, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Jackson, Adam Robert.

Joseph A. Newsome, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 8th of November 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of November 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 28th day of December 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.