alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<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 on Form 10-K of IVAX Diagnostics, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Giorgio D'Urso,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1)        the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: March 31, 2003

/s/ Giorgio D'Urso
---------------------------
Giorgio D'Urso,
Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certificate is provided solely for the purpose of complying with
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and for no other purpose
whatsoever. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any
of the Company's previous filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate the
Company's future filings, including this Annual Report on Form 10-K, in whole or
in part, this certificate shall not be incorporated by reference into any such
filings. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-14 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-14 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-14 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-14 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 38-14 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 5 of 5
#### WILBURN MARLIN BURKE v. CAROLINA & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 26 September 1962.)

Appeal and Error § 39—

Where the Justices of the Supreme Court are evenly divided in opinion, one Justice not sitting, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sharp, S.J.,*January 15, 1962 Term, Gas-toN Superior Court.

In this civil action the plaintiff sought to recover damages for his personal injury sustained while he was attempting to hold in place boxes of freight in a partially loaded car during shifting operations. The plaintiff alleged: “The engineer of the defendant operated the defendant’s engine wantonly and recklessly and without regard to . . . the safety of the plaintiff.”

The defendant, by answer, denied negligence and pleaded (conditionally) the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.

At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the court allowed defendant’s motion for involuntary nonsuit. From judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed.

*Frank Battley Rankin for plaintiff appellant.*

*W. T. Joyner, Geo. B. Mason, Mullen, Holland & Cooke, by James Mullen for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

*Justice Sharp,*having presided in the court below, did not participate in the decision here. The other Justices, being equally divided as to the propriety of the nonsuit, the judgment of the superior court is affirmed without the decision becoming a precedent.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1833 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 120
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1833

  To transfer a bridge over the Wabash River to the New Harmony River 
Bridge Authority and the New Harmony and Wabash River Bridge Authority, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2019

   Mr. Braun (for himself, Mr. Young, Ms. Duckworth, and Mr. Durbin) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

                             June 19, 2019

              Reported by Mr. Barrasso, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To transfer a bridge over the Wabash River to the New Harmony River 
Bridge Authority and the New Harmony and Wabash River Bridge Authority, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restore the Harmony Way Bridge 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF BRIDGE AND LAND.

    Notwithstanding any provision of the Act of April 12, 1941 (55 
Stat. 140, chapter 71), not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the White County Bridge Commission shall convey, 
without consideration, to the New Harmony River Bridge Authority and 
the New Harmony and Wabash River Bridge Authority, any and all right, 
title, and interest of the Commission in and to the bridge across the 
Wabash River at or near New Harmony, Indiana, the approaches to the 
bridge, and the land underneath or adjacent to the bridge and the 
approaches to the bridge.

SEC. 3. REPEAL.

    The Act of April 12, 1941 (55 Stat. 140, chapter 71), is repealed 
effective on the date that the White County Bridge Commission completes 
the conveyance described in section 2.
                                                       Calendar No. 120

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1833

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To transfer a bridge over the Wabash River to the New Harmony River 
Bridge Authority and the New Harmony and Wabash River Bridge Authority, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 19, 2019

                       Reported without amendment
```
Yonorabi::: Jse X. Webb Cofnty Attorney Madison County i%disonville,Texas Gear Sir: OpinionNo. O-1349 I-h?:State Ss.nks-- County depository -- F. D. I. C. -- **Insur** ance --Maximum insurance of individualaccounts. We have your letter of February 71'1$+0, in ribich yo;~ ask the ruling of this departmentupon questions therein stated,as follows, to-xit:

"The County depository of Madisor,County,Texas, was the '~ North Zulch State Bank, located in Madison County.in the town of North .Zulch. Deposits up to $5000.00 were guaranteedby the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This bank closed on January 4, 1940, and a.liquidatingagent of the State Banking Department and officials of the Federal Deposit I~sursnc$,.~ Corporation immediatelytook charge. "The F. D. I. C., as guarantor,has offen:d .L:, the county Superintendeatthe sum of $5000.00, takirrg the pos;fion that the several account balances of various schoolsazd of various other funds for school purposes comprise only one insurable account within the meaning of the F. D. I. C. Act, anal that, therefore, the payment of $5000.00 by the F. D. I. C. completely discharges its insurance liability as to schwl funds. The County Superintendenthas declined to accept tllis $50X.00 offeredby the F. D. I. C. Each and all of the s~2:ools affected as well as the school funds under considerationare commoa school districts. '!Alist of all accounts involved is attxied hereto and made a part hereof. The names of the se\reral accounts are the same as appear on the bank books and the recxds of tKe County School officials. Each of these accountswas c%rrid &%perstely, a.nd

on a separate sheetby the bank, also by -tLeCox?ty School officials.Honorable Joe 2. Webb - page 2 - (O-1949)

"Is each Cosmon School District a separate governmental entItyP "Is each IndependentSchool District a separate governmental entity? "Does the money in any account listed under Madison County Board of Education held in trust or otherwise, enjoy such actual separate ownershipa8 to entitle it to separate insuranceunder the terms of the F. D. I. C. Act? In this connectionthe term 'CountyBoard of Education'means the same as 'Boardof County School Trustess'," Gur opinionNo. O-1948 recently rendered to you has discussedquite fully the principles of law applicable to the questionspropoundedby you in this particular inquiry,and a further discussion is not thought to be necessary. In this, as in your other letter of inquiry,you state that each of these accountswas carried separately,and on a separate sheetby the bank.

Our opinionNo. O-1948 answers, we think, all of your inquiries, and no useful purpose couldbe subservedby making a detailed application of the law, as therein snnounced, to the particular fund or account listed in the sheet appended to your letter of inquiry. Very truly yours ATTOBNEYGENERALOFTEXAS

By /s/ Ocie Speer

Ocie Speer Assistant OS-MR-Ial

APPROVED FEB 15, 1940

IS/ Gerald C. Mann ATTOBNEYGEEEBALOFTEXAS

APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE BY /s/ BWB CHAIRMAN
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 2 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 3 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 4 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 5 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 6 of 6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE THIRD
QUARTER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         5,407,406
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        5,407,406
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          5,407,406
<EQUITIES>                                      44,803
<MORTGAGE>                                     952,859
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  293,475
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               7,859,893
<CASH>                                         221,356
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             629,980
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         685,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,849,287
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              7,448,830
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                357,033
<COMMON>                                       333,553
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    357,963
<OTHER-SE>                                     888,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,849,287
<PREMIUMS>                                     115,301
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            392,328
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              10,908
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  73,721
<BENEFITS>                                     360,575
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     68,281
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                182,360
<INCOME-TAX>                                    80,061
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            102,299
<DISCONTINUED>                                (85,049)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. BRADSHAW

No. 147 PC.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 485.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 February 1976.
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 2 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 3 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 4 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 5 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 6 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 7 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 8 of 8
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Bessie M. Smith, Respondent, against Heine Safety Boiler Company et al., Appellants. State Industrial Commission, Respondent.

(Submitted October 7, 1918;

decided October 15, 1918.)

Motion to amend remittitur denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 224 N. Y. 9.)
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES**

 

PENINSULA GAMING, LLC

 
| **NAME**                         | ** ** | **DOMESTIC JURISDICTION** |
|----------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------|
|                             |       |                           |
| Peninsula Gaming Corp.           |       | Delaware                       |
|                             |       |                           |
| Diamond Jo, LLC                  |       | Delaware                       |
|                             |       |                           |
| The Old Evangeline Downs, L.L.C. |       | Louisiana                      |
|                             |       |                           |
| Diamond Jo Worth Holdings, LLC   |       | Delaware                       |
|                             |       |                           |
| Diamond Jo Worth, LLC            |       | Delaware                       |
|                             |       |                           |
| Diamond Jo Worth Corp.           |       | Delaware                       |

 

----
#### STATE v. McCOMBS

No. 125 PC.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 214.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 January 1979.
#### J. PEYTON FULLER v. PHYLLIS M. FULLER

No. 60

(Filed 4 March 1981)

On discretionary review to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, reported without opinion and filed 15 July 1980, affirming the granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant by *Paschal, J.,*at the 13 November 1979 Session of ORANGE Superior Court.

Plaintiff instituted this action for a divorce based upon a one-year separation. As a second cause of action, plaintiff alleged the existence of a deed of separation which he further alleged contained terms which are unreasonable, unfair, and unduly burdensome upon him. He prayed that the deed of separation be reformed or rescinded on grounds of undue influence, duress, mistake, lack of intent, lack of consideration, and changed circumstances. Defendant moved for summary judgment. At the hearing on that motion, evidence tended to show that plaintiff is Assistant Vice-President and Corporate Controller of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. The trial court considered the affidavits and depositions of the parties and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs second cause of action. Upon plaintiffs appeal, the Court of Appeals in an opinion by Judge Webb, Judges Parker and Clark concurring, affirmed the granting of summary judgment. We allowed plaintiffs petition for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 on 7 October 1980.

*Joseph D. Eifort, attorney for plaintiff.*

*Bryant, Bryant, Drew & Crill, P.A., hy Victor S. Bryant, Jr., for defendant.*

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel and the authorities there cited, we conclude that the peti*391tion for discretionary review was improvidently granted.

The order granting discretionary review is vacated; the summary judgment for defendant remains undisturbed.
#### IN RE ROGERS

No. 253 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 191.

Petition by respondent for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 23 August 1979 and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the case on its merits. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 23 August 1979.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Lancer
Orthodontics, Inc third quarter 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         157,754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,395,801
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (172,561)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,170,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,579,481
<PP&E>                                       2,339,927
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,266,953)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,973,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          925,115
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    185,242
<COMMON>                                     4,602,402
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,739,598)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,973,161
<SALES>                                      4,031,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,031,123
<CGS>                                        2,733,605
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,733,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (294,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (295,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (295,542)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)


</TABLE>
EX-10.26





 EXHIBIT 10.26 

AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 

This AMENDMENT dated January 1, 2020 to the MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT made as of February 1, 2019 (the “Management
Agreement”), by and among CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“CMF”), CERES TACTICAL GLOBAL L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”) and ADG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLP, a limited
liability partnership registered in England and Wales (the “Advisor”, and together with CMF and the Partnership, the “Parties”). 

W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the Management Agreement to reflect general updates to the IMA since execution; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 12 of the Management Agreement, the Management Agreement may be amended by written consent
of the parties. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 

1.         The second sentence of Section 1(c) is hereby deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the following: 
 “The Partnership and Advisor agree that the Advisor shall trade the
assets allocated to it, either directly or indirectly through the Master Fund, at a trading level confirmed to the Advisor by CMF, which shall be traded as a target annualized volatility of 30% unless otherwise agreed to in writing by CMF and the
Advisor.” 
 2.         The first sentence of the second paragraph of Section
1(c) is deleted in its entirety. 
 3.         This Amendment shall take effect as
of the date first written above. 
 4.         This Amendment may be executed in one
or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute the same agreement. 

5.         This Amendment shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of New York. 
 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed for and on behalf of the
undersigned as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	 CERES TACTICAL GLOBAL L.P.

		
	 By:
	 	 Ceres Managed Futures LLC

		 	 (General Partner)



 
			
		
	 By
	 	 /s/ Patrick T. Egan

		 	 Patrick T. Egan

		 	 President & Director

	
	 CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC

		
	 By
	 	 /s/ Patrick T. Egan

		 	 Patrick T. Egan

		 	 President & Director



  

			
	
	 ADG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLP



 
			
		
	 By
	 	 /s/ Hasan Abdat

	 Name: Hasan Abdat

	 Title: Partner




  
 – 2 –
Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
#### LUTHER DIXON v. HOUSTON YOUNG, Original Defendant and WALTER HOLMES ADAIR, JR., Additional Defendant.

(Filed 1 November, 1961.)

Trial § 52—

A *motion to set*aside the verdict and grant a new trial solely on the issue of damages on the ground that the damages assessed by the jury were inadequate, is addressed to the discretion of the trial court and, in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion, the denial of the motion will not be disturbed.

.Appeal by plaintiff from *Hall, J.,*May Civil Term 1961 of PERSON.

This is a civil action to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on 12 July 1958 about 8:00 p.m. while riding in the rear of an open jeep on U. S. Highway No. 501 in Person County, There was *579a collision between the jeep driven by the additional defendant, Walter Holmes Adair, Jr., and a Ford automobile driven by the original defendant, Houston Young.

Issues of negligence as to both defendants were answered in the affirmative. The issue of damages was answered in the amount of $1,000.00. Plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages only. Motion denied, plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*George W. Miller, Jr. and Donald J. Dorey for plaintiff appellant.*

*Robert P. Burns and Charles B. Wood for original defendant Young.*

*R. B. Dawes for additional defendant Adair.*

Pee Cueiam.

The plaintiff assigns as error the refusal of the trial judge to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages only and to grant a new trial thereon on the ground that the damages assessed by the jury were inadequate.

“The granting or the denying of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the damages assessed by the jury are excessive or inadequate is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” *Hinton v. Cline,*238 N.C. 136, 76 S.E. 2d 162, and cited cases.

In such cases, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, the ruling of the trial judge is not reviewable on appeal. An abuse of discretion has not been made to appear on this appeal.

No error.