alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of StemGen, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2020 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Simon Dawson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: November 16, 2020BY: /s/ Simon DawsonSimon DawsonCEO and Chairman of the Board  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 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.
Order entered May 17, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00410
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF Y .D., A CHILD On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14
- 01249



### O RDER
In an order dated May 4, 2016, we ordered Ms. Sumler , Official Court Reporter of the 305th Judicial District Court, to file, within ten days, either the reporter’s record or written verification that appellant has not requested the record. Rather than file t he reporter’s record as ordered in this parental termination case, Ms. Sumler filed, on May 13, 2016, a motion requesting a ten

- day extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We again remind the trial court and Ms. Sumler that, because this is a pare ntal termination case, it is the responsibility of the Court Reporter to prepare, verify, and timely file the reporter’s record and that the trial court must direct Ms. Sumler to immediately commence the preparation of the reporter’s record. The trial cou rt must arrange a substitute reporter if
necessary. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28.4(b)(1).
We GRANT Ms. Sumler’s motion and extend the time to file the reporter’s record to MAY 23, 2016

. In doing so, however, w e EXPRESSLY CAUTION Ms. Sumler that failure tocomply w ith this order may result in an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she

complies.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Cheryl Lee Shannon, Presiding Judge of the 305th Judicial District Court, Ms. Suml er, and all parties. /s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 30 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141760) and Amendment No. 504 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln
      Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N For Variable Annuities for the registration of
      interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019
X&A. .v.. Jki\NUUV FloREb fcliw^ao) /DC\£K&

r^RECEIVEDN FEB 062015 (W^L-^ \ THIRD CO'JRTCFAFPlALS \ JEFFRRYD KYLE /

### 5^o\Y^ib£ WbSJvAT /VkwwU \j\o\xmcl /WfcAw^a "3S1 . 

### \4te>Ts\^SC Wb&L KMK\bJbVi Tb WallvwT%



### CK- C\D AK\S > K*iAt\nL dcuPa d£ &P&MS %$m 

## WciLMffT \sot^xpfeyirrorlwecv ^icW\wt Uy&W^ ^Tj^o.SiWnS&T>^o^nt Vi1^ NSOV, _ 

### TUi u Ki \T V-a\kTbxbTidVKS KLLpv^S >P&IWJ\ . K?9LlWf\ Y\V£> \rifcj Uta\<\^ Yd^uAtA^: »>i .v\. ^9te\^\.V^ <R£&3CbTS bay} iWtWDkiKL 30_

d^iSTb (BV)V?LeTe T>v^?WD ^-WVLt- 6ft. V\\, 

# ^^T^\^ V^PWAJMTO \=R\*£ ©^ Tv ^Vx * iTryi^ "I "^°rco ^W(bi — 3 /(Y(3T^\Cp*TL ftfr S&RnKCS, 

### y&jzA VKj^vox^ pc>a eyriwi^v^>\ Tojf\be exj\^ \^^\b k^^&eAto ; NxR,^m^^

•*-*. 

### O^FPrlhvwVi W^L UW\T C^-T^l-T^^K^OePfM^NVE\NiT D^ 

# T^TT^_Waao^ SVIOTW^S IV^E,00vQo\5. ^vHAtA'S SiCot^ Mersic^ frflR-^saKVS

RECEIVED ^ —^^.^.- _- FE8 06Z0.5 J ^ 193 /5^3 / JMM/HSf/ W.6^1 <ulitVU/i/lTi A/-33 w in •p. ** s
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-26-1997
<CASH>                                             276
<SECURITIES>                                        11
<RECEIVABLES>                                    27827
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      43334
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 72925
<PP&E>                                           90035
<DEPRECIATION>                                   51970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  112079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            23067
<BONDS>                                          24343
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5493
<OTHER-SE>                                       52542
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    112079
<SALES>                                          35422
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 35422
<CGS>                                            28487
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    33802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1039
<INCOME-TAX>                                       375
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                664
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       664
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Dewey J. SANCHEZ, District Attorney, et al. v. Scott A. KLEINPETER.

No. 2303.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1941.

Jos. A. Loret, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

D. J. Sanchez, Dist. Atty., of Baton Rouge, for appellees.

OTT, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the case of State ex rel. Dewey J. Sanchez, Dist. Atty., et al. v. Millard W. Dixon, 4 So.2d 591, this day decided, it is ordered that the judgment herein appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed at the cost of appellant in both courts.

DORE, J., concurs.

LE BLANC, Judge

(dissenting).

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion filed by me in the case of State ex rel. Sanchez v. Millard W. Dixon, 4 So.2d 591, I respectfully dissent from the decree handed down in the majority opinion herein.
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 Quarterly Report of Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Weisman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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:  January 14, 2004

/S/David Weisman
-----------------
David Weisman,
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 8 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-214111) and Amendment No. 499 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763),
      and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity
      Company of New York and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N For Variable Annuities for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>
             
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        Aug-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>             Feb-28-1999
<CASH>                           191
<SECURITIES>                       0    
<RECEIVABLES>                  6,593
<ALLOWANCES>                       0    
<INVENTORY>                    1,284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               8,090    
<PP&E>                           955
<DEPRECIATION>                   284    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 8,770
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          1,019    
<BONDS>                            0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0    
<PREFERRED>                        0    
<COMMON>                          12    
<OTHER-SE>                     7,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   8,770   
<SALES>                        1,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               2,031   
<CGS>                            826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    826   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 967   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 9   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  229   
<INCOME-TAX>                      80   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              149   
<DISCONTINUED>                     0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0   
<CHANGES>                          0   
<NET-INCOME>                     149   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .013   
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .011  
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chukwuma E. Azubuko

v. 06-cv-266-SM

Massachusetts’ Lawyers Weekly

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith

approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated November 9, 2006, for the reasons set forth

therein. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed, and the

recommended injunction is hereby entered as an order of the

court.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

November 28, 2006

cc: Chukwuma E. Azubuko, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00266-SM Document 9 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 1
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 93 6 . I N RE: ESTATE OF W I LLI AM NASH.

Lay s h a K em

p an d Tren ei ce Nas h fi l ed a cav eat to t h e wi ll o f W i l li am Nas h.
Th e t ri al co u rt u p h el d t h e v al id i t y o f th e wi l l
, an d t h e cav e a t o r s fi l ed t hi s d i rect

ap p eal

. Ou r co n s t i t u t i o n g ran t s t h e Su p rem e Co u rt ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er ap p eal s i n “ [a] l l

cas es i nv o l v i n g wi ll s .” Ga. Co n s t

. o f 1 98 3
, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (3 ). As t h e Su p rem e Co urt h as ex p l ai n ed
, “ ‘ al l cas es i n v o l v i n g wi l l s ’ m ean s t h o se cas es i n wh i ch

t h e w i l l’ s v al i di ty o r m ean i ng i s i n q u es ti on .” In re Es t a te o f Lo t t , 2 5 1 Ga. 4 6 1 (3 0 6
SE2 d 9 2 0) (1 98 3 )

. B e c a u s e i t ap p ears t h i s cas e i n v o l v es th e v al i d it y o f W i l l i am Nas h’ s w i ll
, t hi s ap p e a l i s h ereb y TRANSFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt fo r d i s p o s i t i on

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 02/16/2016 February 16, 2016
#### STATE ex rel. SANCHEZ, Dist. Atty., et al. v. OGDEN.

No. 2304.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1941.

Jos. A. Loret, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

D. J. Sanchez, Dist. Atty., of Baton Rouge, for appellees.

OTT, Judge.

 In addition to the grounds urged in the case of State ex rel. Sanchez, Dist. Atty., et al. v. Millard W. Dixon, 4 So.2d S91, and the reasons given in the opinion in that case, this day handed down, an additional ground, stated in the opinion in the other case, is urged in the alternative in this case. The conclusion reached by the majority in the other cases renders it unnecessary to pass on the alternative and additional ground urged in this case. However, in order to clarify the matter, we may state that, in our opinion, as Ward 9, from which this defendant was appointed, contains less than 10,000 inhabitants, under the provisions of Section 2 of Act 12 Extra Sess. of 1940, the ward is not entitled to an additional police juror. To entitle the ward to its first additional police juror, the ward must have a population of 10,000 or more; for *602the second additional police juror, a population of not less than 17,500 etc.

For these reasons, and for the reasons given in the case of State ex rel. Sanchez, Dist. Atty., et al. v. Millard W. Dixon, 4 So.2d 591, this day decided, it is ordered that the judgment herein'appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed at the cost of appellant in both courts.

DORE, J., concurs.

LE BLANC, Judge

(concurring).

In this case as I agree with the majority opinion on the question of the lack of the required increase in population to entitle the ward to the additional representation claimed, I concur in the decree therein rendered.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rex Fornaro

v. Case No. 06-cv-468-PB

Daniel P. Neelon, et al.

O R D E R

 By order dated February 1, 2007, Attorney Ferro was instructed to register for ECF and

to have a pro hac vice motion filed on his behalf on or before February 8, 2007, the failure of

which would result in him being removed as counsel for the plaintiff in this case. Attorney Ferro

has failed to comply with this order. As a result, Attorney Ferro is removed as counsel for the

plaintiff and will not be permitted to represent the plaintiff in this case. 

Pursuant to LR 83.6(d), the plaintiff shall, on or before March 1, 2007, advise this court

of the name of a new attorney or, in the alternative, of a decision to appear pro se (without

counsel). See LR 83.6(b) and (d). The court instructs the plaintiff that he is under no obligation

to retain counsel and he may prosecute this case himself.

If no new appearance or other response is received from the plaintiff on or before March

1, 2007, the file will be referred to the undersigned judicial officer for further action, which may

include a dismissal of the case. See LR 83.6(d).

 SO ORDERED.

Date: February 10, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

 Paul J. Barbadoro

 District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 Rex Fornaro 

Case 1:06-cv-00468-PB Document 17 Filed 02/10/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1361 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1361

      To provide for coverage of all medically necessary pancreas 
         transplantation procedures under the Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2001

 Mr. Nethercutt (for himself, Mr. LaFalce, and Mrs. Capps) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To provide for coverage of all medically necessary pancreas 
         transplantation procedures under the Medicare Program.

    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 ``Insulin-Free World Medicare Pancreas 
Transplantation Coverage Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF MEDICALLY NECESSARY PANCREAS TRANSPLANTS.

    Effective for procedures performed on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, any medically necessary pancreas transplantation 
procedure shall be a covered benefit under the medicare program under 
title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) whether 
or not such procedure is done in conjunction with another organ 
transplantation procedure that is a covered benefit under such program.
                                 <all>
```
#### SOUTH FLORIDA LOAN & DISCOUNT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. LINCOLN CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Nov. 9, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dee. 17, 1954.

Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for petitioner.

Williams, Salomon & Katz, Miami, for respondent.

SEBRING, Justice.

This is a petition for writ of certiorari directed to an order of the Circuit Court for Dade County denying petition for intervention in a companion case to Weissman v. Lincoln Corporation, Fla., 76 So.2d 478.

Petitioner acquired a lien on certain stock of Lincoln Corporation, a Florida corporation, and was named a party defendant in a proceeding instituted by another lienor, Wek Sales Company, in New York, for the purpose of foreclosing its lien under a pledge of the same stock. The order entered by the circuit court upon the petition for intervention is:

> “ * * * that said petitioner’s interest in Stock Certificate No. 2 of Lincoln Corporation was foreclosed by public sale of said certificate following and pursuant to the entry of judgment on stipulation of the parties in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in that cause styled K. Bernard Weissman, et al. v. Milton Kaufman, South Florida Loan and Discount Corporation, et al., and that said foreign judgment is binding upon the petitioner and provides expressly that each and every one of the defendants in said action, including said petitioner, ‘be forever barred and foreclosed of all right, title and interest and of equity of redemption in and to said certificate * * * *’ ”*

The opinion in Weissman v. Lincoln Corporation, supra, reflects the view taken by this Court in disposing of Weiss-man’s claims as purchaser in the New York proceedings, and the effect of the stockholders’ agreement upon said proceedings. The order above recited appears to be fully in accord with such opinion, in that the decree affirmed in Weissman v. Lincoln Corporation, supra, was not such as to make the pledge, and foreclosure pursuant thereto, null and void, but merely subject to a right of redemption by stockholders.

The petition for certiorari should be and is denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.5



                      AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LICENSE AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LICENSE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made as of
the 10th day of September, 1998 by and between Oracle Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Oracle"), and Versatility Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Versatility").

     WHEREAS, Oracle and Versatility are parties to a Technology License
Agreement dated as of August 20, 1998 (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend certain provisions of the
Agreement as hereinafter set forth in order to correct a typographical error in
the Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual promises and
covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as
follows:

     1. Section 5.2.B of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the
following provision inserted in lieu thereof:

     "5.2.B    Acceptance of Superior Offer
     If (i) the Merger Agreement is being or has been terminated and Versatility
     is obligated to pay Oracle a Termination Fee (as defined in the Merger
     Agreement) under the Merger Agreement, (ii) Versatility refunds to Oracle
     all of the Prepaid Sublicense Fees prior to or simultaneously with the
     payment of such Termination Fee, and (iii) the Termination Fee is paid in
     accordance with the terms of the Merger Agreement, then this Agreement
     shall terminate upon repayment by Versatility of such Prepaid Sublicense
     Fees and payment of the Termination Fee."

     2. Except as specified herein, the parties hereby ratify and affirm each of
the other provisions of the Agreement referred to therein.

     3. This Amendment may be executed simultaneously in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Each counterpart shall be
an original. A facsimile signature appearing on a facsimile document shall be
given the same effect as if it were an original signature on an original
document.


<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Oracle and Versatility have duly executed this
Amendment, or caused it to be duly executed, under seal as of the date first set
forth above.

                                        VERSATILITY INC.


                                        By:  /s/ Kenneth T. Nelson
                                             ________________________________
                                             Name:   Kenneth T. Nelson
                                             Title:  SVP Finance


                                        ORACLE CORPORATION

                                        By:  /s/ David J. Roux
                                             ________________________________
                                             Name:   David J. Roux
                                             Title:  Executive Vice President
#### In the Matter of HOTEL MARTIN COMPANY OF UTICA, Debtor. First Citizens Bank & Trust Company of Utica, Appellant.

No. 209.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 10, 1938.

Arthur L. Evans, of Utica, N. Y., for appellant.

Edward L. O’Donnell, of Utica, N. Y., for appellee.

August Merrill, of Utica, N. Y., for trustees.

Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and SWAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order reversed in open court