alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Form 10-Q of Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Alex KamAlex
      KamChief
      Executive Officer and President(principal
      executive officer)Date:
      August 14, 2009/s/ Pan-Rong LiuPan-Rong
      LiuChief
      Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer and principal accounting officer)Date:
      August 14, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Madison Avenue Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Madison Avenue Holdings,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EHMANN, et al. v. MEDFLOW, INC., et al.

433A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Matthew N. Leerberg, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, C. Bailey King, Jr., Charlotte, Attorney at Law, For Medflow, Inc.

Harold C. Spears, Attorney at Law, Christopher P. Raab, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, For Ehmann, Eugene K., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of March 2018 by Defendants to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."

Jackson, J., recused
Anna Marie MCNAMARA, Plaintiff, v. Patrick Arthur MCNAMARA, Defendant.

No. COA17-1411

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 3, 2018

REVERSED. REMANDED.
WALKER v. KNATS CREEK NURSERY, INC.

39P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Russell F. Walker, For Walker, Russell F.

Arthur M. Blue, Attorney at Law, Carthage, For Knats Creek Nursery, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of July 2018 by Defendant for Gate Keeper Order:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
#### Anne Marie FRANCOIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and Retirement Care Services, Inc., Appellees.

No. 4D02-3208.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 27, 2003.

Anne Marie Francois, Lauderdale Lakes, Pro Se.

John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for Appel-lee-Unemployment Appeals Commission.

TAYLOR, J.

The Unemployment Appeals Commission reversed the appeals referee’s decision that the claimant’s appeal was timely filed and quashed the referee’s ruling that the claimant was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We reverse the Commission’s order.

The appeals referee found that the claimant complied with the agency representative’s instructions to fax her appeal letter to the Orlando call center office for forwarding to the appeals office well before the twenty-day period for filing her appeal expired. Based on this finding, which is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, the referee concluded that the claimant filed a timely appeal. We agree. *See Frederick v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals,*834 So.2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(reversing dismissal of appeal to Unemployment Appeals Commission as untimely and holding that appeal would be reinstated if, on remand, it is determined that the claimant was given an incorrect fax number or misled into faxing her notice of appeal to the incorrect fax number and that she actually attempted to fax her notice of appeal to the Commission within the twenty-day time period); see *also Cornello v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n,*624 So.2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(reversing UAC’s order that affirmed appeals referee’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction because claimant had been misinformed and misled).

Because appellant’s timely filed notice sufficed to vest jurisdiction in the appeals referee, we reverse the Commission’s order and remand for reinstatement of the referee’s decision on the merits that appellant is not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

HAZOURI, J., concurs.

MAY, J., dissents with opinion.

*954MAY, J.

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Had the appellant raised the issue of the Commission’s finding on the timeliness of her appeal, I would agree with the majority. However, the appellant only argued the merits of her claim for unemployment compensation. I am unwilling to find that the issue of timeliness was properly raised when it does not appear in the appellant’s brief.
Christina D'ALESSANDRO, Plaintiff, v. Adam D'ALESSANDRO, Defendant.

No. COA 15-357.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Richard Thomas MAYS

No. 46P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Richard T. Mays, for Mays, Richard Thomas.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 16th of February 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of February 2018 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
Randall L. and Carolyn M. HENION, Petitioners, v. COUNTY OF WATAUGA, North Carolina, Johnny and Joan Hampton, Maymead Materials, Inc., and JW Hampton Company, Respondents.

No. COA17-1107

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

DISMISSED.
Exhibit 23.2





NOTE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP





The following
consent of Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) is a copy of the original consent, dated August 15, 2001, permitting incorporation by reference of their report included with the prior years financial statement into the Companys
registration statements on Form S-8. The SEC has recently provided regulatory relief designed to allow public companies to dispense with the requirement that they file a consent of Andersen in certain circumstances. After reasonable efforts we have
not been able to obtain a re-issued consent from Andersen.





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Companys previously filed
Registration Statement File No. 333-51034 and 333-51032.








/s/    Arthur
Andersen LLP





Orange County, California


August 15, 2001




90
#### STATE ex rel. Christopher GILMORE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2353.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Gilmore, Christopher; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 00-5067; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-767.

Denied.
STATE of North Carolina v. Stephanie BRIDGES

No. 70P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Durwin P. Jones, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Andrew Nelson, Attorney at Law, for Bridges, Stephanie.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of March 2018 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 7th of June 2018."
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4598 

To provide the heads of agencies with direct-hire authority to appoint qualified 

candidates to positions relating to information technology, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2014 

Mr. GARCIA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To provide the heads of agencies with direct-hire authority 

to appoint qualified candidates to positions relating to 

information technology, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Top Tech for USA 

5 Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DIRECT-HIRE AUTHORITY FOR POSITIONS RELAT7 ING TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. 

8 (a) AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, rule, or regulation, the head of an agency may 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4598 IH

1 exercise direct-hire authority to appoint qualified can2 didates to positions relating to information technology, in3 cluding web or digital systems design and development. 

4 (b) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The direct-hire 

5 authority described in subsection (a) shall terminate 5 

6 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

7 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

8 (1) AGENCY.—The term ‘‘agency’’ has the 

9 meaning given ‘‘Executive agency’’ in section 105 of 

10 title 5, United States Code. 

11 (2) DIRECT-HIRE AUTHORITY.—The term ‘‘di12 rect-hire authority’’ means the authority described in 

13 section 3304(a)(3) of such title. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Denia
Enterprises Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended October 31, 2008 (the
Report), the undersigned, J. Michael Ator, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
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.

December 22, 2008

| | /s/
      James Michael Ator
| | ----------------------------
| | James Michael Ator          
| | Chief Executive Officer and 
| | Chief Financial Officer     

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

---
**EXHIBIT 32      **

**CERTIFICATION      OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

|                                  |                                                              |                                            |
|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                  | **WILSHIRE              BANCORP, INC.**                           |
|                             |                                                         |                                       |
| Date:              May 10, 2006  | By:                                                     | /s/ Soo              Bong              Min |
|                                  |                                                                   |
|                                  | Soo                Bong MinChief                Executive Officer |

|                            |                                                                |                                            |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                            |                                                                     |
|                       |                                                           |                                       |
| Date:              May 10, 2006 | By:                                                       | /s/ Brian              E.              Cho |
|                            |                                                                     |
|                            | Brian                E. ChoChief                  Financial Officer |

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4588 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to deny the right to grant 

retransmission consent to a television broadcast station if an AM or 

FM radio broadcast station licensed to the same licensee transmits a 

sound recording without providing compensation for programming. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2014 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself and Ms. ESHOO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to deny the 

right to grant retransmission consent to a television 

broadcast station if an AM or FM radio broadcast station licensed to the same licensee transmits a sound 

recording without providing compensation for programming. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting the Rights 

5 of Musicians Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4588 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECT OF CERTAIN RADIO TRANSMISSIONS ON 

2 RIGHT TO GRANT TELEVISION RETRANS3 MISSION CONSENT. 

4 Section 325(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 

5 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)(2)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

7 the end; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period 

9 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

10 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(F) to retransmission of the signal of a tele13 vision broadcast station if the licensee of such sta14 tion is also the licensee of an AM or FM radio 

15 broadcast station and, during the term of the license 

16 for such television broadcast station in which such 

17 retransmission occurs, such licensee has transmitted 

18 a sound recording over such radio station without 

19 providing compensation for all programming carried 

20 over the signal.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
10.23


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT 


TO THE



TECHNOLOGY
LICENSE AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment
to the Technology License Agreement dated August 23rd, 2010 by and between Baxter Healthcare SA, a Swiss corporation
having a principal place of business at Postfach, 8010, Zurich, Switzerland (hereinafter “Baxter”) and Kamada
Ltd., having a place of business at Science Park, Kiryat Weizmann, 7 Sapir St., Ness-Ziona, 74036, Israel (hereinafter “Kamada”)
(the “Agreement”) is entered into as of this 14th day of May, 2013 (the “Effective Date”). Baxter
and Kamada shall collectively be referred to as the “Parties”.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
desire to enter into an amendment to the Agreement in order to amend the 3rd Milestone, as described hereunder and set
applicable payment schedule in connection thereto (hereinafter the "First Amendment").


 


Now
therefore, it is hereby agreed as follows:


 


		1.	The Milestone Table set forth in Section 5.3 of the Agreement
shall be replaced with the following table:



 


	Milestone	 	Milestone
    

    Payment (USD)	 
	Hand-over of [*****].	 	$	5,000,000	 
	[*****]	 	$	5,000,000	 
	Completion of transfer by [*****]	 	$	4,500,000	 
	[*****]	 	 	[*****]	 



 


		2.	The Technology Sharing Plan, which is incorporated into the Agreement as Exhibit 1.67, shall be
amended to reflect the amendment described in Section 1 above.



 


		3.	The Parties acknowledge and agree
that the 3rd Milestone has been fully achieved prior to the Effective Date. Despite the payment schedule described
in Section 5.3, the Parties agree that payment in connection with achievement of the 3rd Milestone will be made no
later than [*****], 2013.






 





 



[*****] Confidential portions of this document have been
redacted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 




    	First Amendment to the Technology License Agreement	Page 1



    	 



    

 


		4.	The Parties acknowledge and agree that payment for the first two (2) Milestones described in Section
5.3 has been completed in its entirety.



 


		5.	All provisions of the Agreement which are not expressly amended by the terms of this First Amendment
shall remain in effect and without change.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused
this First Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.


  


	BAXTER HEALTHCARE SA	 	KAMADA LTD.
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ James Fischer	 	By:	/s/ David Tsur
	Name:	James Fischer	 	Name:  	David Tsur
	Title:	VP - EMEA Bioscience Mktg.	 	Title:  	Chief Executive Officer
	Date:	10.05.2013	 	Date:	14/5/13
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Yvo Aebli	 	By:	/s/ Gil Efron
	Name:	Yvo Aebli	 	Name: 	Gil Efron
	Title:	Director, Finance Baxter Healthcare SA	 	Title:  	Chief Financial Officer
	Date:	 	 	Date:	14/5/13





 






    	First Amendment to the Technology License Agreement	Page 2
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 15, 2011                                         |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                     |   |
| /s/ Michael Kurtanjek                                                    |   |
| Michael P. Kurtanjek, President  & Chief Executive Officer |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                                            |   |

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Lee-Jamil Ke'Ruan MILLER

No. 190P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Joseph P. Lattimore, Attorney at Law, for Miller, Lee-Jamil Ke'Ruan.

Brenda Eaddy, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*290***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of June 2018 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:

"Ex mero motu, treated as Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4716 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national monuments 

in Colorado, except by express authorization of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2010 

Mr. LAMBORN (for himself and Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 

monuments in Colorado, except by express authorization 

of Congress. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ES4 TABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN 

5 COLORADO. 

6 This proviso of the last sentence of the first section 

7 of the Act of September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 

8 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is amended by inserting ‘‘or Colo9 rado’’ after ‘‘Wyoming’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4712 

To include the county of Mohave, in the State of Arizona, as an affected 

area for purposes of making claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To include the county of Mohave, in the State of Arizona, 

as an affected area for purposes of making claims under 

the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE 

4 COMPENSATION ACT. 

5 Section 4(b)(1)(C) of the Radiation Exposure Com6 pensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended by insert7 ing ‘‘Mohave,’’ after ‘‘Apache,’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
STATE v. James H. TERRELL, Jr.

55A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 21, 2018

Elizabeth J. Weese, Assistant Attorney General

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, James Howard Terrell, Jr., Michele A. Goldman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Terrell, James Howard (Jr.)

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ernie Lee, 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 21st of December 2018 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of December 2018."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 28th day of January 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4754 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national monuments 

in Montana except by express authorization of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2010 

Mr. REHBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 

monuments in Montana except by express authorization 

of Congress. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ES4 TABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN 

5 MONTANA. 

6 This proviso of the last sentence of the first section 

7 of the Act of September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 

8 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is amended by inserting ‘‘or Mon9 tana’’ after ‘‘Wyoming’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS