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


CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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 report on Form 10-Q ofSolar
 Energy Limitedfor thequarterly
 period endedMarch 31, 2010,
 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Michael
 James Gobuty, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906
 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | Thisreport 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 this report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant
for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:
 May 18, 2010



/s/
 Michael James Gobuty

Michael
 James Gobuty

Chief
 Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Thiscertification
 accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
 except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
 registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report),
 irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.   A signed original of this written
 statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant
 and will be retained by the registrant
 and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



24
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5725]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-188-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Filing

March 3, 1995..
    Take notice that on March 1, 1995, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to 
become effective April 1, 1995:

First Revised Sheet No. 13

    NGT states that the revised tariff sheet is filed in compliance 
with the Stipulation and Agreement (Stipulation) approved by Commission 
order in Docket No. RP91-49-000 on March 31, 1992. 58 FERC para. 61,359 
(1992).
    Pursuant to the Stipulation, NGT is making its third annual filing, 
proposing to continue to hold its CSC rate at $0.03.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest the proposed tariff 
sheets should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214, 385.211). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before March 10, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5725 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4660]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Cross-Disciplinary Activities; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Cross-Disciplinary Activities 
(#1193).
    Date and Time: April 4, 1995; 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Room 1150, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Harry G. Hedges, Program Director, CISE/CDA, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 306-1980.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate CISE Minority Institutions 
Infrastructure proposals as part of the selection process for 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 21, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-4660 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Kenneth Ligreci, Appellant, v Teresa Ligreci, Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 808]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about May 1, 2003, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to vacate or modify the divorce judgment in this action, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered October 17, 2002, which, inter alia, ordered plaintiff to pay child support in the amount of $6,000 per month and awarded defendant maintenance in the amount of $4,000 per month, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as plaintiff has not offered a reasonable explanation for his persistent failure to comply with compulsory and, indeed, court-ordered discovery respecting his finances, we perceive no ground to conclude that his default was other than willful *(see Sanchez v City of New York,*266 AD2d 127 [1999]), or that it did not warrant his preclusion from offering evidence pertaining to finances at trial, and, accordingly, find no basis to disturb the denial of his motion for relief from the ensuing divorce judgment *(see Dimitratos v City of New York,*180 AD2d 414 [1992]).

While the doctrine of judicial estoppel *(see D & L Holdings v RCG Goldman Co.,*287 AD2d 65, 71 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d *206611 [2002]) has been applied in matrimonial actions *(see e.g. Crespo v Crespo,*309 AD2d 727 [2003]), its application in this case against defendant to prevent her, by reason of her position in the parties’ prior bankruptcy proceeding, from presenting evidence respecting her needs and the needs of the parties’ three children, would not have been appropriate. Such evidence, as distinguished from evidence of plaintiffs ability to pay, which defendant did not affirmatively present, was not even arguably inconsistent with, much less contrary to, defendant’s position in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Lastly, plaintiffs contention that the court did not protect his rights as a pro se litigant is belied by the record. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Premiere Global Services, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) Nos. 333-79599, 333-87635, 333-89891, 333-51380, 333-57698, 333-67292, 333-101262, 333-116506,  333-151962 and 333-167620 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 14, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 Atlanta, Georgia
#### LELA HOOD v. CHARLES F. DUNN.

(Filed 3 October, 1928.)

Taxation — Tax Deeds — Action to Set Aside — Rents and Profits.

Where the plaintiff sustains his action to set aside defendant’s tax deed under which defendant has been in possession of the lands, he must prove by his evidence the amount of rents the defendant has collected therefrom before he can recover them.

Appeal by defendant from *Crammer, J.,*at February Term, 1928, of LeNOIR.

New trial.

*107Action to remove cloud upon plaintiff’s title to land, and for other relief.

From judgment on the verdict defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Sutton & Greene and Ely J. Perry for plaintiff.*

*Charles F. Bunn in propria sua.*

CoNNOR, J.

There was no error on the trial of this action in the Superior Court, with respect to the first and second issues submitted to the jury. The judgment that the tax deed from W. B. Coleman, city clerk and tax collector of the city of Kinston, N. C., to defendant, Charles F.’Dunn, dated. 10 June, 1927, and recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Lenoir County, be canceled on the record and marked null and void, by the clerk of the Superior Court of Lenoir County, is affirmed.

However, there was error with respect to the third issue. No evidence appears in the case on appeal from which the jury could find that plaintiff is entitled to recover of defendant the sum of $111.00, for rents collected by him for the land described in the complaint. Defendant’s assignment of error based upon his exception to the instruction of the court to the jury upon the third issue must be sustained. On this issue plaintiff is entitled to recover of defendant only the amount collected by defendant as rent for said land. With respect to the third issue, there must be a

New trial.
Exhibit 10.1


 


December 29, 2022


 


Jennifer Cote


 


Dear Jennifer:


 


I am pleased to offer you the position of Interim Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer of Harvard Bioscience, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of January 1, 2023, reporting directly to me.
In connection with your appointment, we would like to adjust your compensation as follows:


 


	1.		Base Salary. Effective January 1, 2023, your annual base salary (your “Base
Salary”) will be $270,000.00, paid at a bi-weekly rate of $10,384.62.



 


	2.		Additional Cash Bonus. You will be eligible to receive a cash bonus (your “Cash
Bonus”) equal to twenty five percent (25%) of your Base Salary earned in 2023. The Cash bonus will be payable in quarterly
installments on March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31, 2023. To receive your bonus, you must be employed by the Company on
the applicable payment date. The Cash Bonus is in addition to any cash incentive bonus that you may be eligible to receive for service
in 2023.



 


	3.		One-Time Equity Award. You will be eligible to receive a one-time equity award consisting
of time-based restricted stock units (RSUs) having a grant date value of $75,000 (the “One-Time RSU Award”) and vesting on
December 29, 2023. The One-Time Equity Award will be subject to valuation methodologies and other terms and conditions applicable to
other similarly situated executives of the Company. The One-Time Equity Award is subject to Compensation Committee approval, which we
intend to seek at the March meeting of the Compensation Committee. Your One-Time RSU Award will be in addition to any other equity awards
that you may be eligible to receive in 2023.



 


All your other current terms and conditions, covenants, and obligations, of your at-will employment,
including those in your April 28, 2022 offer letter, remain in full force and effect.


 




I congratulate you on this new opportunity and I am looking forward to your future success.


 


	
    HARVARD BIOSCIENCE, INC.

     

    /s/James W. Green

    Chairman and CEO

     

    Date: December 29, 2022
	
    JENNIFER COTE

     

    /s/Jennifer Cote

     

     

    Date: December 29, 2022
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Donald R. Sellers, Chief Executive Officer of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
         (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
         1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
         2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this
         certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
         with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
         Registrant.

Date: March 15, 2004                             /s/ Donald R. Sellers
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                  Donald R. Sellers
                                               Chief Executive Officer

         A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR
OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE
SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS
WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SCICLONE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY SCICLONE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5572]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration


Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Clearance

AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
    The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of 
Health and Human Services, has submitted to OMB the following proposals 
for the collection of information in compliance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (Public Law 96-511).
    1. Type of Request: Extension; Title of Information Collection: 
Survey Report Form; Form No.: HCFA-1557; Use: This survey form is an 
instrument used by the State agency to record data collected in order 
to determine compliance with the Clinical Laboratory Improvement 
Amendments. This information is needed for laboratory certification and 
recertification; Respondents: Business or other for profit, Federal 
Government, State or local government; Number of Respondents: 30,225; 
Total Annual Responses: 30,225; Total Annual Hours Requested: 16,321.5.
    2. Type of Request: Extension; Title of Information Collection: 
Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Application forms; Form 
Nos.: HCFA-14 and -116; Use: The application must be completed by 
entities performing laboratory testing on human specimens for health 
purposes; Respondents: Business or other for profit, Federal 
Government, State or local government; Number of Respondents: 16,000; 
Total Annual Responses: 16,000; Total Annual Hours Requested: 20,000.
    3. Type of Request: New; Title of Information Collection: Quality 
Assurance for Phase II of the Home Health Agency Prospective Payment 
Demonstration; Form No.: HCFA-R-74; Use: This instrument will be used 
to collect information to implement an outcome-based quality assurance 
program to monitor the quality of care provided by agencies 
participating in Phase II of the Home Health Agency Prospective Payment 
Demonstration; Respondents: Business or other for profit, nonprofit 
institutions; Number of Respondents: 29,427 (episodes); Total Annual 
Responses: 58,854; Total Annual Hours Requested: 10,152.
    Additional Information or Comments: Call the Reports Clearance 
Office on (410) 966-5536 for copies of the clearance request packages. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collections should be sent within 30 days of this notice directly to 
the OMB Desk Officer designated at the following address: OMB Human 
Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Allison Eydt, New Executive 
Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: February 27, 1995.
Kathleen B. Larson,
Director, Management Planning and Analysis Staff, Office of Financial 
and Human Resources, Health Care Financing Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-5572 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1632

THEOPHILUS AGEDAH,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: June 4, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theophilus Agedah, Petitioner Pro Se. Nicole Joann Thomas-Dorris, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Theophilus Agedah, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the order 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motions for remand, reconsideration, and 

stay of removal. This court’s review is limited to issues raised in the informal brief. In his 

informal brief, Agedah fails to challenge the Board’s resolution of his motions. Thus, we 

will not review the Board’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 

170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Because our review is limited to final orders of removal, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider any bond determination or Agedah’s continued detention in the 

first instance. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED
#### STATE v. BEULAH T. ROGERS and STATE v. EVA ALICE FOSTER.

(Filed 14 December, 1960.)

Criminal Law § 136—

Since a suspended sentence may not be activated upon a plea of *nolo contendere*to a subsequent offense, where the record is insufficient to show whether a charge of a subsequent offense was disposed of under a plea of *nolo contendere*or a verdict of guilty after trial, the cause must be remanded.

*570Appeal by defendants from *Gambill, J-,*25 July 1960 Criminal Term, of Guilpoed (Greensboro Division).

At the above term of court the Solicitor moved the court to invoke the suspended sentences imposed on these defendants at the November Term 1959 of said court. The defendants had been found guilty of the illegal possession and possession for sale of taxpaid whiskey. The cases had been consolidated for trial and each defendant was-given a sentence of eighteen months, suspended upon certain conditions, among which each defendant was to remain of good behavior andi not violate any of the laws of North Carolina for a period of three years. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. This-Court found no error. See 252 N.C. 499, 114 S.E. 2d 355, where the facts are stated in detail.

The defendants were tried in the Municipal-County Court of Guilford, Criminal Division, in Greensboro, North Carolina up on-warrants issued on 4 June 1960, charging them with gambling, in-violation of G.S. 14-292.

The record in the Municipal-County Court is contradictory with respect to the plea entered by the respective defendants. The following statement appears therein: “These cases were tried in Municipal-County Court of Greensboro, North Carolina, July 7, 1960. The-defendants pleaded *nolo contendere,*there was a verdict of guilty and a fine against each defendant of $5.00 and cost which was paid.”

The court below held that the conviction of these defendants in-the Municipal-County Court of Guilford in Greensboro on- the charge-of gambling is a specific violation of the terms upon which the sentences imposed at the November Term 1959 of the Superior Court of Guilford County were suspended. The court thereupon activated the suspended sentences.

The defendants appeal, assigning error.

*Attorney General Bruton, Asst. Attorney General Rountree for the' State.*

*J. Kenneth Lee for the defendants.*

PeR.Ctjbiam.

The State confesses error because it cannot be determined from the record whether the cases in the Municipal-County Court were disposed of on pleas of *nolo contendere*or upon verdicts of guilty after trial. For this reason the judgment entered below is set aside and the cause remanded to the Superior Court of Guilford County (Greensboro Division) for further hearing in accord with. *571the opinion of this Court in *S. v. Thomas,*236 N.C. 196, 72 S.E. 2d 725.

Error and remanded.