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

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 Universal Biosensors, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of such officers 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
The undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the 4thday of February, 2013.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul WrightPaul Wright Principal
Executive Officer/s/ Salesh BalakSalesh Balak Principal
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.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(109 So. 289)

No. 27950.

#### TINSLEY et al. v. PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

(June 28, 1926.)

Appeal from Second Judicial District Gourt, Parish of Claiborne; John S. Richardson, Judge.

J. Rush Wimberly, of Arcadia, for plaintiffs.

W. D. Goff, Dist. Atty., of Arcadia, for defendant.

ST. PAUL, J.

As well as we can make out from this somewhat confused record, the defendant school board, some time about December,' 1924, abolished three then existing school districts and consolidated them into one larger district, principally for the purpose of supplying a much needed high school.

The tax levies in said districts had either expired or been canceled .and the taxpayers reimbursed the taxes paid thereunder; no indebtedness, bonded or otherwise, having been incurred on the faith of said taxes and tax levies.

An election was thereupon duly ordered in said consolidated district, authorizing a special tax and a bond issue for school purposes as aforesaid, which election was duly held and carried, and the result thereof duly promulgated.

*635I.

Within the 60 days allowed by law, thesé plaintiffs (voters and taxpayers) attacked the regularity and validity of all these proceedings, .setting up certain matters of fact and of law for reason why said proceedings should be declared irregular and invalid.

There was a trial in due course, whereupon the evidence having failed to support the allegations of fact, and the matters of law not appearing well founded, the trial judge found for the defendant, and rejected the demand of the plaintiffs. This judgment was rendered March 14, 1925.

II-

On March 8, 1926, nearly one year after-wards, a devolutive appeal was taken to this court by plaintiffst But appellants have filed neither assignment of errors, nor brief in support of their appeal, nor have they appeared to present the case orally.

III.

It would serve no useful purpose to go over the contentions set up by plaintiffs in their petition to the court below, since appellants themselves apparently have not sufficient faith in their own contentions to urge them again before this court. Suffice it to say that we see no more merit therein than did the district judge; and in the brief herein filed by the appellee all said contentions are fully met and shown to be wholly unfounded.

The appeal seems to have been purely frivolous.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
# C_2007082EN.01004902.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/49

---

Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Unipetrol v Commission

(Case T-45/07)

(2007/C 82/103)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unipetrol a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Matějček and I. Janda, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision in whole or in part, at least as far as Unipetrol is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in whole or in part, at least as far as Unipetrol is concerned;

| — | otherwise exercise the Court's unlimited jurisdiction; and |
| --- | --- |

—

otherwise exercise the Court's unlimited jurisdiction; and

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission:

| — | committed an error of appreciation by rejecting the evidence that the applicant's holding of all the shares of the company Kaučuk was of a purely financial nature or, alternatively, committed a manifest error of appreciation by rejecting evidence which demonstrated that Kaučuk acted on the market as an autonomous entity, without any intervention by the applicant in Kaučuk's sales and marketing policy concerning emulsion styrene butadiene rubber; and |
| --- | --- |

—

committed an error of appreciation by rejecting the evidence that the applicant's holding of all the shares of the company Kaučuk was of a purely financial nature or, alternatively, committed a manifest error of appreciation by rejecting evidence which demonstrated that Kaučuk acted on the market as an autonomous entity, without any intervention by the applicant in Kaučuk's sales and marketing policy concerning emulsion styrene butadiene rubber; and

| — | erred in law by imputing the same conduct twice to different entities, i.e. to Kaučuk and to Kaučuk's shareholder, the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in law by imputing the same conduct twice to different entities, i.e. to Kaučuk and to Kaučuk's shareholder, the applicant.

The rest of the pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-44/07, Kaučuk v Commission.

Kaučuk

Commission

---
**Exhibit 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     The Board of Directors    Northfield Laboratories Inc.:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statements (Nos.    333-15877,333-51681,333-79579,333-102672,333-110110    and    333-128787)    on    Form S-8    and the registration statement    (No. 333-137072)    on    Form S-3    of Northfield Laboratories Inc. of our reports dated    August 14, 2007, with respect to the balance sheets of    Northfield Laboratories Inc. as of May 31, 2007 and 2006,    and the related statements of operations, shareholders’    equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the    three-year period ended May 31, 2007, and for the    cumulative period from June 19, 1985 (inception) through    May 31, 2007, management’s assessment of the    effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of    May 31, 2007, and the effectiveness of internal control    over financial reporting as of May 31, 2007, which reports    appear in the May 31, 2007 annual report on    Form 10-K    of Northfield Laboratories Inc.     As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the    Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards    No. 123 (revised), “Share-Based Payment,” as of    June 1, 2006.     /s/ KPMG LLP     Chicago, Illinois    August 14, 2007
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of The Cronos Group (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Dennis J Tietz, the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, based on my knowledge, that:

                  (i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of
                       Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act
                       of 1934; and,

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

March 20, 2003

/s/ DENNIS J. TIETZ
Dennis J. Tietz
Chief Executive Officer

                                                                        - E156 -
STATE v. Shannon Dale ISOM

265P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 4, 2017

Kirby H. Smith, III, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Isom, Shannon Dale.

Melody R. Hairston, Special Deputy Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of August 2017 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of August 2017."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                             161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                       318
<INVENTORY>                                     20,173
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,654
<PP&E>                                          69,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,743
<BONDS>                                         51,601
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,629
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,690
<SALES>                                        170,121
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,121
<CGS>                                          138,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  138,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,987
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,210
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,777
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       682
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12



</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q)
fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ FRED M. POWELLFred M. PowellChief Financial Officer
  43
* 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

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41478

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SEFERINO CORDERO-MERCADO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-296-1

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Seferino Cordero-Mercado appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Cordero complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He

argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. 

Cordero thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the
No. 02-41478

-2-

two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Cordero acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Candie L. WILLOUGHBY and Jerome Willoughby, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY ; Johnston Memorial Hospital Authority d/b/a Johnston Health ; Johnston Memorial Hospital Authority d/b/a Johnston Medical Center-Smithfield, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs v. Steris Corporation and General Electric Company, Third-Party Defendants

No. 338P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Charles R. Holton, Attorney, Amy C. Folk, Attorney, Jackson R. Price, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Johnston Memorial Hospital Authority, et al.

Charles D. Mast, Attorney at Law, Smithfield, Leon Lucas, Attorney at Law, Kenly, for Willoughby, Candie L., et al.

Jon Berkelhammer, Attorney at Law, Lenor Marquis Segal, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, M. Christian King, Attorney, for General Electric Company.

Jay Anthony Audino, Attorney at Law, Greenville.

William K. Davis, Attorney at Law, Andrew A. Freeman, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Steris Corporation.

Alan M. Ruley, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem.

Kevin G. Williams, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of September 2016 by Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs (Steris Corporation) 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 1st of November 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 05-18695) published on page 55131 of the issue for Tuesday, September 20, 2005.

Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland heading, the entry below for PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has been withdrawn.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland**                     (Cindy West, Manager) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:                

*1.  The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.*, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; to acquire HW Holdings, Richmond, Virginia, and thereby indirectly acquire Harris Williams & Co., and Harris Williams Advisors, Inc., and engage in broker dealer activities and advising clients on merger and acquisition matters, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6)(iii) and (b)(7)(i) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 22, 2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-19286 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
STATE of North Carolina v. Kevin Christopher MCREED

No. COA17-229

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

NO ERROR.
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

** **

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement (No. 333-193458) on Form S-1 of AmpliPhi Biosciences Corporation of our report dated April 15, 2015,relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporatedin this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of AmpliPhi Biosciences Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2013.

 

/s/ PBMares, LLP

 

Richmond, Virginia

April 15, 2015
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Execution Version 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT 

This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT (this “Amendment”), is entered into and shall be effective as of May 8, 2013
(the “Effective Date”), by and between BG Medicine, Inc. (the “Issuer”) and GE Capital Equity Investments, Inc. (“Holder”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings
assigned to them in that certain Warrant by the Issuer in favor of the Holder, dated as of February 10, 2012 (the “Warrant”). 
 W I T N E S S E T H: 
 WHEREAS, the Warrant was issued by the Issuer
to the Holder in connection with that certain Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of February 10, 2012, among the Issuer, General Electric Capital Corporation, in its capacity as Agent (the “Agent”), and the Lenders party
thereto from time to time; and 
 WHEREAS, Issuer, Agent and Lenders have entered into a First Amendment to Loan and
Security Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, pursuant to which the parties thereto have agreed to, inter alia, amend the exercise price per share of the Warrant. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations set forth in this Amendment, and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Amendment. Section 1 of the Warrant
is amended by deleting the final sentence thereof and replacing the same with the following: 
 The “Warrant Price”
shall be $1.70 per share, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 7 below. 
 2. No Other Changes. Except as expressly
described in this Amendment, the Warrant and its terms remain in full force and effect, and the parties hereto ratify, confirm and approve those terms, as amended by this Amendment. 
 3. Counterparts. The parties may execute this Amendment in counterparts. Each counterpart is an original, and together the counterparts constitute one agreement. The parties may exchange
signature pages by facsimile or .pdf scanned e-mails. The parties may append signature pages to any counterpart. 
 4. Authority.
By executing this Amendment, the Issuer represents and warrants that it is duly authorized to execute, and that no other authorization is required for, its execution of this Amendment. 

[Signature pages follow.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment No. 1
to the Warrant as of the Effective Date. 
  

			
	BG MEDICINE, INC., as Issuer
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Charles Abdalian

	Name:	 	Charles Abdalian
	Title:	 	EVP & CFO


 [Signature Page to Amendment to Warrant (BG Medicine)] 







 
			
	GE CAPITAL EQUITY INVESTMENTS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Scott R. Towers

	Name:	 	Scott R. Towers
	Title:	 	Duly Authorized Signatory


 [Signature Page to Amendment to Warrant (BG Medicine)]
IN RE: M.J.H.

No. COA16-371

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED.