alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**FERMAVIRPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

**FORM10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2006**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I am the ChiefExecutive Officer of FermaVir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Florida corporation (the“Company”).  I am delivering thiscertificate in connection with the Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterended October 31, 2006 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form10-QSB”).

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained inthe Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
| December 22, 2006 | /s/ Geoffrey W. Henson  |   |
|-------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|              | Geoffrey W. Henson,     |   |
|              | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
NOONSOB v. STATE of NC

131P16-7

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 26, 2018

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Somchoi Noonsab, For Noonsab, Somchoi.

Somchoi Noorsob, For Noorsob, Somchoi.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for the State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of March 2018 by Defendant for Immediate Release:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of March 2018."
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 01-31102

Summary Calendar

_____________________

PATRICIA A. CADE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, WILLIAM HENDERSON,

Post Master General; SCIALLA ASSOCIATES; 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL SUPERVISORS,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(01-CV-943-E)

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

June 27, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Patricia A. Cade, formerly a postal

employee, appeals the district court’s dismissal pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Specifically, the court ruled that all claims in the instant suit

other than racial discrimination are identical to the claims, and

are asserted against identical parties, as in her prior action and

thus are subject to dismissal under the doctrines of collateral
2

estoppel or issue preclusion. The court held further that the one

claim newly asserted in this action, racial discrimination, should

be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, the

comprehensive Order and Reasons of the district court, and the

appellate briefs of the respective parties. As a result of our de

novo review of the district court’s dismissal of Cade’s actions, we

conclude that the rulings of the district court are correct in all

respects, and we affirm for essentially the same reasons expressed

by that court.

AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey D. COX, Petitioner, v. CITY OF KANNAPOLIS, and City of Kannapolis Board of Adjustment, Respondents.

No. COA16-1183

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

AFFIRMED.
COOPER v. BERGER, et al.

409PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2018

Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Attorney at Law, D. Martin Warf, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Candace S. Friel, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Berger, Philip E., et al.

Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Eric M. David, Attorney at Law, Daniel F.E. Smith, Attorney at Law, Grayson Kelley, Chief Deputy, for Cooper, Roy A. (III).

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 8th of March 2018 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of March 2018."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 30th day of April 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

RA/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY EDWARD HOLZ,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ROBERT E. MCFADDEN, Regional

Director; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-55565

D.C. No. 5:07-cv-01410-DSF-PJW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Timothy Edward Holz, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice

for failure to pay the partial initial filing fee. We have jurisdiction under

FILED

FEB 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RA/Research 2 08-55565

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Taylor v. Delatoore, 281

F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002), and we vacate and remand. 

The district court dismissed the action without determining whether Holz

had funds to pay the partial initial filing fee in its entirety at the time the payment

was ordered. Because Holz demonstrated in his response to the order to show

cause that he lacked the funds to pay the entire fee, the district court should not

have dismissed the action. See 8 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (4); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850

(“[A] district court cannot dismiss an in forma pauperis prisoner’s case based on

his failure to pay the initial fee when his failure to pay is due to lack of funds

available to him when payment is ordered.”). Accordingly, we vacate and remand

for further proceedings. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
# Official Journal C 241A/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 241A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 496 October 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 241A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 496 October 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 241A/1 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — sixth supplement to the 24th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 241A/1

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — sixth supplement to the 24th complete edition

1

---

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

EN
#### Simon Dwayne SINCLAIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D02-2599.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 29, 2003.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Glenn P. Gifford and'Phil Patterson, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

*552Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Alan R. Dakan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Simon Sinclair appeals the sentences imposed upon him as a prison releasee reof-fender (PRR), contending that the sentences were based exactly on the same evidence, admitted over objection, that this court had previously decided was insufficient to support such sentences. *See Sinclair v. State,*812 So.2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) *(Sinclair I).*We agree and once again reverse the sentences and remand the case for resentencing.

In *Sinclair I,*this court affirmed appellant’s convictions, but reversed and remanded for resentencing, because the state had failed to offer legally sufficient evidence to support the imposition of sentences under the PRR act.1 The state had relied solely on hearsay evidence regarding appellant’s release date from prison, and had failed to prove through a fingerprint expert or otherwise that the prior convictions were appellant’s, both of which were essential to the imposition of PRR sentences.2 In *Sinclair I,*we cited *Boyd v. State,*776 So.2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA), *review denied,*792 So.2d 1213 (Fla.2001); *Randall v. State,*613 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); and *King v. State,*590 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), as an aid to the state and trial court. Nevertheless, on remand, the state failed to cure these evi-dentiary errors in proof and the trial court again imposed PRR sentences based upon legally insufficient evidence.

In reversing appellant’s sentences, we reject the state’s argument that this case should be affirmed under *Eutsey v. State,*383 So.2d 219 (Fla.1980), and *Smith v. State,*461 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Appellant’s counsel in this case properly lodged objections based on the ground of hearsay as to the release date stated in the probation order allegedly signed by appellant3 and the criminal judgment, due to the fact that the probation officer was not the custodian of the judgment, and on the ground that there was no proof that appellant was the same person named on the judgment for the prior convictions. The latter factual issue goes to the truth of the material relied upon for the imposition of the PRR sentences and distinguishes this case from *Eutsey*and *Smith.*

REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

ERVIN, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

1

. § 775.082(9), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998).

2

. These facts were not recited in *Sinclair I.*Rather, they are found in the record of the earlier case, and we of course may appropriately take judicial notice of the records in former appeals. *See Barry Hinnant, Inc. v. Spottswood,*481 So.2d 80, 81 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

3

.This probation order is not part of the record and does not appear to have been admitted into evidence.
#### Lorenzo *v.*Stampfl et al.

(278 P. [2d] 1023)

Decided January 17, 1955.

No. 17,413.

Mr. Aldo G. Notarianni, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Clifford J. Gobble, Mr. F. F. Hunter, for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed without written opinion.
Exhibit 10.1-WOOF Q1






EXHIBIT 10.1


SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE
This Second Amendment to Lease (this “Amendment”) is made effective as of January 16, 2013 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Werner Wolfen, Trustee of the Louis Glasier 1974 Revocable Trust, Michael Dunitz, Nancy Bruch, Dorothy A. Dunitz, and Judy Rosenberg (collectively, “Lessor”) and VCA Antech, Inc., formerly known as, Veterinary Centers of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Lessee”).


A.Lessor and Lessee are parties to that certain Standard Industrial/ Commercial Single-Tenant Lease - Net date 
January 1, 1999 (the “Original Lease”), as amended by that certain First Amendment to Standard Industrial/ Commercial/ Single-Tenant Lease - Net dated March 11, 1999 (the “First Amendment,” and together with the Original Lease, the “Existing Lease”) pursuant to which Leases from Lessor certain premises commonly known as 12401 West Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, California (the “Premises”) as more particularly described in the Existing Lease. Any capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned thereto in the Existing Lease.


B.The Expiration Date of the Existing Lease is July 31, 2014.


C.Lessor and Lessee hereby desire to amend the Existing Lease on the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment. The Existing Lease, as amended hereby, shall be referred to as the “Lease”.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Lessor and Lessee hereby agree as follows:


1.Insuring Party.  Notwithstanding anything else contained in the Existing Lease, Lessee shall be deemed to be the “Insuring Party” for all purposes under the Lease.


2.Effectiveness of Lease.  The Existing Lease, except as amended by this Amendment, remains unmodified and in full force and effect. Lessee hereby represents and warrants to Lessor that, to its actual Knowledge, as of the Effective Date (a) there are no Defaults on the part of Lessor under the Lease, and (b) there is no circumstance, event, condition or state of facts which, by the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, could entitle Lessee to any defense against the enforcement of any of the obligations of Lessee under the Existing Lease or constitute or result in a Default by Lessor.


3.Counterparts.  This Amendment many be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which, together, shall constitute one document.
[Signature Page Follows]









LESSOR:




	
			
	/s/Werner Wolfen
	 
	 

	Werner Wolfen, Trustee of the Louis
Glasier 1974 Revocable Trust
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	/s/Michael Dunitz
	 
	 

	Michael Dunitz
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	/s/Nancy Bruch
	 
	 

	Nancy Bruch
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	/s/Dorothy A. Dunitz
	 
	 

	Dorothy A. Dunitz
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	/s/Judy Rosenberg
	 
	 

	Judy Rosenberg
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	LESSEE:
	 
	 

	VCA Antech, Inc., formerly known as,
	 
	 

	Veterinary Centers of America, Inc.,
	 
	 

	a Delaware corporation
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	By: /s/Neil Tauber
	 
	 

	Name: Neil Tauber
	 
	 

	Its: Senior Vice President
STATE of North Carolina v. Marquis Antoine BATISTE

No. COA16-1186

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

REVERSED.
# Official Journal L 157/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 157 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 499 June 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 157

English edition

Legislation

Volume 499 June 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 816/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to countries with public health problems | 1 |
| | * | Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures | 8 |
| | * | Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast) (1) | 24 |
| | * | Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1) | 87 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Regulation (EC) No 816/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to countries with public health problems

1

*

Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures

8

*

Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast) (1)

24

*

Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1)

87

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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


     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended  September 30, 2005 (the "Report") of BV  Pharmaceutical,  Inc., as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Lee Southern, Chief Financial Officer of BV Pharmaceutical,  Inc.,
hereby  certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on 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  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: November 9, 2005                      /s/ LEE SOUTHERN
                                             ___________________________
                                                 Lee Southern
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19616]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[R03-OAR-2005-VA-0007; FRL-7977-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; Redesignation of the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania 
County, and Stafford County Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and 
Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing the proposed rule published on September 
12, 2005 which proposed approval of a redesignation request and 
maintenance plan submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the City 
of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County (the 
Fredericksburg area). The Fredericksburg area is currently designated 
nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone national ambient air quality 
standard (NAAQS). It is EPA's intent to publish a proposed rule in the 
near future which will re-propose approval of the redesignation of the 
Fredericksburg area and the associated maintenance plan, and provide an 
expanded discussion as to why the redesignation request for this area 
is approvable under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: The September 12, 2005 proposed rule published at 70 FR 53746 is 
withdrawn as of September 30, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85e6e4f5f7eceaabe4e8fcc5e0f5e4abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e7d7f6e6c7771307f73675e7b6e7f30797168">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 23, 2005.
Thomas Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 05-19616 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE v. Stephen KYPRIANIDES

26P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Stephen Kyprianides, for Kyprianides, Stephen.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of February 2018 by Defendant to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
Perrin Q. HENDERSON, Plaintiff v. Mary Ward HENDERSON, Defendant

No. COA16-72-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
 




 
 COMMON STOCK COMMON STOCK 

PGEM PLY GEM 
 PLY GEM HOLDINGS, INC. SEE REVERSE FOR 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF DELAWARE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 

CUSIP 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
 SPECIMEN 

is the owner of 
 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF 
 PLY GEM HOLDINGS, INC. 
 transferable on the books
of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 

WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. 

Dated: 
 PLY GEM HOLDINGS, INC. 
 CORPORATE 

SEAL 
 2004 
 SECRETARY, TREASURER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER DELAWARE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 

AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC 
 (Brooklyn, NY) 
 TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR

 BY: 
 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 







 



 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
Certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN COM - as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - Custodian 
 TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) 
 JT TEN - as joint tenants with right under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
 of survivorship and not as tenants Act 
 in common
(State) 
 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 

shares 
 of the common stock evidenced by this Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 
 Attorney 
 to transfer the said shares on the books
of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution. 
 Dated 

X 
 X 
 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST
CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME OF THE STOCKHOLDER(S) AS WRITTEN 
 UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY
PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY 
 CHANGE WHATEVER. 

Signature(s) Guaranteed: 
 THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE
GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. 
 SPECIMEN