alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of CurrencySharesSM Canadian Dollar Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carl G. Verboncoeur, Chief
Executive Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Trust.

Date: January 29, 2007

/s/ Carl G. VerboncoeurCarl G.
Verboncoeur*Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)

*The Registrant is a
trust and Carl G. Verboncoeur is signing in his capacity as the principal executive
officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
Exhibit 4.62
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE
COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CureVac AG
AND
YALE UNIVERSITY
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Collaborative Research Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is made effective this 28th day of June, 2021 (hereinafter “Amendment NO. 1 Effective Date”), by and between CureVac AG, a German stock corporation with offices at Friedrich-Miescher-Strasse 15, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany, and Yale University, a non-profit corporation, organized and existing under the and by virtue of a special charter granted by the General Assembly of the Colony and State of Connecticut (hereinafter “Yale”) with an office at 25 Science Park, 150 Munson Street, 3rd Floor, P.O. Box 208327, New Haven, CT 06520-8327.
WHEREAS, CureVac AG and Yale entered into that certain Agreement effective July 1st, 2019.
The parties now desire to amend the terms of the Agreement as more particularly set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
		1.	The Term shall be extended to June 30, 2022.

		2.	Except as provided in this Amendment, all terms used in this Amendment that are not otherwise defined shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.

		3.	This Amendment NO. 1 embodies the entire agreement between CureVac AG and Yale with respect to the amendment of the Agreement. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of the Agreement and this Amendment NO. 1, the provisions of this Amendment NO. 1 shall control and govern.

		4.	Except as specifically modified and amended herein, all of the terms, provisions, requirements and specifications contained in the Agreement remain in full force and effect. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the parties do not intend to, and the execution of this Amendment NO. 1 shall not, in any manner impair the Agreement, the purpose of this Amendment NO. 1 being simply to amend and ratify the Agreement, as hereby amended and ratified, and to confirm and carry forward the Agreement, as hereby amended, in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Yale and CureVac AG have executed and delivered this Amendment effective as of the Amendment NO. 1 Effective Date.
​
​

Page 1 of 2



	​


	​


	​


	​


	​


	​


	​



	CureVac AG
	​
	Yale University

	​
	​
	​

	​
	​
	​

	By:
	/s/ Daniel Babka
	​
	​
	By:
	/s/ Jennifer Rawlings
	​

	
	​
	​
	​

	Name:
	Daniel Babka
	​
	​
	Name:
	Jennifer Rawlings
	​

	
	​
	​
	​
	​

	​
	​
	​

	Title:
	Senior Legal Counsel
	​
	​
	Title: 
	Sr.Contract Manager

	
	​
	​
	​
	​
	​

	Date:
	6.7.21
	​
	​
	Date:
	7/6/21
	​



​
​
	​


	​


	​



	By:
	/s/ Dr. Ulrich Kruse
	​

	​
	​

	Name:
	Dr. Ulrich Kruse
	​

	​
	​
	​

	​
	​

	Title:
	Senior Director IP Licensing
	​

	​
	​

	Date:
	July 6,2021
	​



​

Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 34.3 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors

Perpetual Trustee Company Limited 

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Perpetual Trustee Company Limited (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB, except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(viii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiv), which the Company has determined as being inapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions being serviced, in respect of Medallion Trust Series 2006-1G as of June30, 2006 and for the period from March 14, 2006 to June 30, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of June 30, 2006 and for the period from March 14, 2006 to June 30, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG

 

KPMG

 

Sydney, Australia

September 19, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23824]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

RIN 0584-AD87


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Eligibility, 
Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions of the Food, 
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008; Approval of Information Collection 
Request

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of approval of Information Collection Request (ICR).

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

SUMMARY: The final rule and interim final rule titled Eligibility, 
Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions of the Food, 
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 was published on January 6, 2017 
(82 FR 2010). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cleared the 
associated information collection requirements on July 13, 2017. This 
document announces approval of the ICR.

DATES: The ICR associated with the final rule was published in the 
Federal Register on January 6, 2017, and was approved by OMB on July 
13, 2017, under OMB Control Number 0584-0064.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sasha Gersten-Paal, Branch Chief, 
Certification Policy Branch, Program Development Division, Food and 
Nutrition Service (FNS), at (703) 305-2507, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85f6e4f6ede4abe2e0f7f6f1e0eba8f5e4e4e9c5e3ebf6abf0f6e1e4abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="344755475c551a5351464740515a194455555874525a471a414750551a535b42">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 24, 2017.
Brandon Lipps,
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-23824 Filed 11-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Don A. BLAIR, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2010-7137.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 20, 2011.

Roger W. Rutherford, Bristol, VA, for Claimant-Appellant.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

RADER, Chief Judge.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs responds to this court’s order directing Don A. Blair to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Blair has not responded to the court’s order.

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims entered judgment in this case on June 21, 2010. The docket sheet of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims indicates that that court received Blair’s notice of appeal on August 23, or 63 days after entry of judgment.

Any appeal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims had to be received within 60 days of the date of entry of judgment. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). Thus, we do not have jurisdiction and this appeal must be dismissed. *See Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement); *Sofarelli Assoc., Inc. v. United States,*716 F.2d 1395 (Fed.Cir.1983).

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
<PAGE>   1
[EDISON SCHOOLS LETTERHEAD]

                                                                   Exhibit 10.01

5 July 2000

Tonya Hinch
Edison Schools
521 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10175

Dear Tonya,

We are delighted to provide you with a $100,000 loan in consideration for your
services from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003.

So that there is no confusion as to the terms of this loan, please carefully
review the following. If these terms meet with your approval, please sign at the
bottom of this letter as indicated.

1.   Edison Schools, Inc. ("Edison") will make a $100,000 non-interest bearing
     loan ("the "Loan") to Tonya Hinch. The Loan shall be nonrecourse to Tonya
     with the exception of the specific provisions herein.

2.   In the event Tonya exercises and sells any or all of her stock options in
     Edison, including any options granted before or after the date of this
     letter, any gains realized net of federal, state, and local taxes on such
     gains up to $100,000 must be used to repay Edison the Loan.

3.   In the event Tonya's employment with Edison terminates for any reason
     whatsoever, Tonya must exercise and sell any and all vested stock options
     in Edison (subject to appropriate insider trading policies of Edison)
     within 90 days of the date of termination, provided, however, that the
     share price on the date of sale is greater than the strike price of the
     stock options. The proceeds of such sale, net of federal, state, and local
     taxes, up to $100,000 must be used to repay the Loan.

4.   In the event that the Loan has not been repaid as of June 30, 2003, and in
     the event that Tonya would realize a net gain of at least $100,000 net of
     federal, state, and local taxes on the exercise and sale of any or all of
     her vested options at any time after such date, Tonya agrees to immediately
     exercise a sufficient number of options and sell a sufficient number of
     shares (subject to appropriate insider trading policies of Edison) so as to
     repay Edison the Loan.

We value your services, and look forward to another successful year.

Sincerely,



Christopher D. Cerf
Chief Operating Officer


Agreed: _______________________
        Tonya Hinch
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sharrod BOLTON, a.k.a. Sharrod Bolten, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-50548.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 29, 2010.

Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Sharrod Bolten, Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *207*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*207MEMORANDUM **

Sharrod Bolton appeals from his 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bolton contends that the district court did not provide an adequate statements of reasons for the sentence in excess of the policy statement range. To the contrary, the district court explicitly noted that Bolton blatantly breached the court’s trust and that he poses a significant risk to the community. Thus, the district court did not procedurally err. *See United States v. Musa,*220 F.3d 1096, 1101-03 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22742]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4340-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4340-DR), dated 
September 20, 2017, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 5, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands is hereby amended to 
include permanent work under the Public Assistance program for those 
areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared 
a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 20, 
2017.

    All islands in the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands for 
Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for 
Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and 
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct 
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-22742 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Order entered March 12, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00088 - CR No. 05 - 20 - 0008 9 - CR No. 05 - 20 - 000 90 - CR No. 05 - 20 - 000 91 - CR No. 05 - 20 - 000 92 - C R No. 05 - 20 - 000 93 - CR JOSHUA JEFF BARRIER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 15th J udicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 070006 Ct s . 1 - 6

O RDER Before the Court are Rick Dunn ’ s March 10, 2020 motion s to withdraw as counsel for appellant. We GRANT the motion s and DIRECT the Clerk to remove Rick Dunn as appella nt’s counsel of record.We ORDER the trial court to appoint new counsel to repr esent appellant in

th ese appeal s . We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supple mental clerk = s record containing the order appointing new counsel to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable J ames P. Fallon , Presiding Judge, 15 th Judicial District Court; to Rick Dunn; and to the Grayson County District Attorney’s Office

. We ABATE th ese appeal s to allow t he trial court to comply with this order. We will reinstate the appeal s when we receive the order appointing new counsel.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIE F JUSTICE
Document

Exhibit 10.1
Annual Incentive Compensation Plan Metrics for 2022


On February 9, 2022, the Compensation, Talent and Culture Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved the specific performance goals and business criteria to be used for purposes of determining any future cash awards for 2022 participants, including executive officers, under the Company's Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (filed as Exhibit 10-R to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021).  The Corporate performance criteria and weightings to be used for 2022 under the plan include attaining specified levels of:


•Company Adjusted Free Cash Flow (50%)


•Company Adjusted EBIT (20%)


•Company Revenue (10%)


•Quality (20%)


Based on business performance results for 2022 against the targeted levels established for each metric, the Compensation, Talent and Culture Committee will determine the percentage of the target award that is earned, which could range between 0% and 200% depending on actual performance achieved relative to the target levels.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda McCALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-13896.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 27, 2008.

Tommie Brown Hardwick, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeffery C. Duffey, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

A federal indictment charged Appellant, Brenda McCall (“McCall”), with three crimes: two counts of aiding and abetting the distribution of pseudoephedrine with knowledge that it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine — one for an April 10, 2003 sale, and another for an April 17, 2003 sale — and one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. *975A jury found McCall not guilty on the conspiracy charge and the April 10 charge, but found her guilty of the April 17, 2003 sale.

The issues presented on appeal are:

(1) Whether the Government presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that McCall knew the pseudoephedrine she sold on April 17 would be used to manufacture methamphetamine;

(2) Whether the district court erred in charging the jury with a “deliberate ignorance” instruction; and

(3) Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Investigator Tony Helms.

“We review a district court’s decision to deny a motion for judgment of acquittal based on sufficiency of the evidence de novo.” *United States v. Dulcio,*441 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir.2006). In determining whether the Government presented sufficient evidence, the court “must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the [Government and draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict.” *Id.*“Where an appellant has objected to a jury instruction at trial, we review the court’s decision to use that instruction for abuse of discretion.” *United States v. Dean,*487 F.3d 840, 847 (11th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 1444, 170 L.Ed.2d 275 (2008). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s admission of evidence. *See United States v. Maragh,*174 F.3d 1202, 1204 (11th Cir.1999).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that there is no merit to any of the arguments McCall makes in this appeal and, accordingly, we affirm her conviction.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1583

KURTIS ALLEN CLIFFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD BOZZELLA; GAIL BOZZELLA; RICHARD T. COLARESIA; ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT SYSTEM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-98- 777-L) Submitted: July 14, 1998 Decided: August 5, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kurtis Allen Clifford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action concerning the custody of his son. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Clifford v. Bozzella , No. CA-98-777-L (D. Md. Apr. 1, 1998). We also deny Clifford’s motion to expedite as moot, and we deny hismotion for emergency injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Timothy Barritt, Chief Executive Officer and Richard G.
Stockdale, Chief Financial Officer, of Big Cat Mining Corporation, hereby
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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Big Cat Mining Corporation for the
     period ended October 31, 2005 (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 Big Cat
     Mining Corporation.

Dated February 16, 2006                         /s/ Timothy Barritt
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Timothy Barritt,
                                                Chief Executive Officer

Dated February 16, 2006                         /s/ Richard G. Stockdale
                                                --------------------------
                                                Richard G. Stockdale,
                                                Chief Financial Officer
```