alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Jupiter Marine
International Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the nine month
period ending April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence Tierney, Principal
Financial 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, to the
best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


By: /s/ Lawrence Tierney
    --------------------
    Lawrence Tierney
    Principal Financial Officer
    June 8, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 692 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 692

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
                            medical devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2019

Mr. Toomey (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Blumenthal, 
  Mr. Casey, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Hassan, Mr. 
 Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Jones, Ms. McSally, Mr. Portman, Ms. Rosen, 
Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Young, Mr. Wicker, 
 Mr. Rubio, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Blunt) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
                            medical devices.

    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 ``Protect Medical Innovation Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MEDICAL DEVICE EXCISE TAX.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking subchapter E.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Subsection (a) of section 4221 of such Code is amended 
        by striking the last sentence.
            (2) Paragraph (2) of section 6416(b) of such Code is 
        amended by striking the last sentence.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of subchapters for chapter 32 of 
such Code is amended by striking the item relating to subchapter E.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to sales after December 31, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1236 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1236

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for commencement of 
  the construction of the Arrowrock Dam Hydroelectric Project in the 
                            State of Idaho.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT.

    Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 4656, the 
Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the project and 
after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the 
Commission's procedures under that section, extend until March 26, 
2005, the time period during which the licensee is required to commence 
construction of the project.

            Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1236

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for commencement of 
  the construction of the Arrowrock Dam Hydroelectric Project in the 
                            State of Idaho.
```
#### Albert N. Ridgely, Respondent, v. Oscar B. Bergstrom and Henry A. Taylor, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Bergstrom & Company, Appellants.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
§ 94.18 Bovine spongiform encephalopathy; importation of edible products derived from bovines. ( a ) The importation of meat, meat products, and other edible products derived from bovines is prohibited with regard to BSE, except as provided in this section and in §§ 94.19, 94.20, 94.21, 94.22, and 94.23.
( b ) The following commodities derived from bovines may be imported into the United States without restriction regarding BSE, provided that all other applicable requirements of this part are met: ( 1 ) Milk and milk products;
( 2 ) Boneless skeletal muscle meat (excluding mechanically separated meat) that: ( i ) Is derived from bovines that were not, prior to slaughter, subjected to a pithing process or to stunning with a device injecting compressed air or gas into the cranial cavity, and that passed ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection;
( ii ) Has been prepared in a manner to prevent contamination with SRMs; and
( iii ) Is accompanied to the United States by an original certificate stating that the conditions of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section have been met. The certificate must be issued and signed by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the exporting region or signed by a person authorized to issue such certificates by the veterinary services of the national government of the exporting region.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0015) [78 FR 72998, Dec. 4, 2013, as amended at 86 FR 68862, Dec. 3, 2021]
# C_2012133EN.01001001.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Italy) — Giuseppe Sibilio v Comune di Afragola

(Case C-157/11) (1)

1

(Social policy - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 2 - Concept of ‘an employment contract or relationship defined by law, collective agreements or practice in force in each Member State’ - Scope of the framework agreement - Clause 4, point 1 - Principle of non-discrimination - Persons carrying out ‘work of social utility’ with public authorities - National rule excluding the existence of an employment relationship - National rule establishing a difference between the benefit paid to socially useful workers and the remuneration received by workers engaged under a contract of definite and/or indefinite duration by the same public authorities and carrying out the same activities)

2012/C 133/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Giuseppe Sibilio

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Afragola

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Napoli — Interpretation of Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Principle of non discrimination — Unemployed persons registered on mobility lists or as job seekers engaged by public authorities for a fixed term carrying out work of social utility/work of public utility (known as socially useful workers/publicly useful workers) — National legislation establishing a difference in treatment in terms of pay between socially useful workers/publicly useful workers and workers engaged under a contract of indefinite duration by the same public authorities performing the same duties.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 2 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the relationship between socially useful workers and the public authorities for whom they carry out their activities does not fall within the scope of that framework agreement where, and which is for the national court to determine, those workers are not covered by an employment relationship as defined by national law, collective agreements or practice in force, or the Member States and/or social partners have exercised the option granted to them under point 2 of that clause

---

(1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.

1

---
§ 592.100 Who may obtain service. ( a ) An application for service may be made by any interested person, including, but not being limited to, the United States, any State, county, municipality, or common carrier, and any authorized agent of the foregoing.
( b ) Where service is offered: Any product may be inspected, wherever an inspection program employee is available and the facilities and the conditions are satisfactory for the conduct of the service.
( c ) The applicant must have a tax identification number for billing purposes.
# C_2013344EN.01000701.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-269/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)

2013/C 344/08

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Czech Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Czech Republic;

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 06.08.2011.

1

---
# C_2013063EN.01000601.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Société Geodis Calberson GE v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

(Case C-623/11) (1)

1

(Agriculture - Food aid - Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 - Programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation - Successful tenderer for a contract for the transport of beef - Conferring of jurisdiction - Arbitration clause)

2013/C 63/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Geodis Calberson GE

Applicant:

Defendant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’Etat — Interpretation of Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3) — Conferring of jurisdiction in a dispute between the successful tenderer for a contract for transporting beef and the national competent intervention agency concerning the payment procedure and compensation for damage suffered — Arbitration clause

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1125/1999 of 28 May 1999, must be interpreted as conferring on the Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction to rule on disputes relating to the conditions under which the intervention agency designated to receive the tenders submitted during a tendering procedure for the free supply of agricultural products to the Russian Federation makes the payment owed to the successful tenderer and releases the supply security lodged by that tenderer in favour of that agency, in particular actions for compensation in respect of damage suffered as a result of misconduct by the intervention agency while carrying out those transactions..

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

1

---
**Exhibit 21**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

Citizens and Farmers Bank, incorporated in Virginia 

C&F Mortgage Corporation, incorporated in Virginia 

Hometown Settlement Services LLC, organized in Virginia 

Certified Appraisals LLC, organized in Virginia

C&F Reinsurance LTD, organized in Turks & Caicos Islands 

C&F Title Agency, Inc., incorporated in Virginia 

C&F Finance Company, incorporated in Virginia 

C&F Investment Services, Inc., incorporated inVirginia 

C&F Insurance Services, Inc., incorporated in Virginia 

C&F Financial Statutory Trust I, organized in Delaware 

C&F Financial Statutory Trust II, organized in Delaware
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.2

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              CAMBRIDGE HEART, INC.

         Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, Cambridge Heart, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), does
hereby certify:

         FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, by unanimous
written action dated as of March 15, 2001, duly adopted resolutions proposing
and declaring advisable the following amendment to the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation:

RESOLVED:     That the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
              Corporation be amended by deleting the first paragraph of Article
              FOURTH in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu
              thereof:

                   "FOURTH. The total number of shares of all classes of stock
              which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 52,000,000
              shares, consisting of (i) 50,000,000 shares of Common Stock, $.001
              par value per share ("Common Stock"), and (ii) 2,000,000 shares of
              Preferred Stock, $.001 par value per share ("Preferred Stock")

         SECOND: That the stockholders of the Corporation, at the 2001 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders held on May 31, 2001, duly approved said proposed
Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation in
accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by its President on this 31st day of May, 2001.

                          CAMBRIDGE HEART, INC.

                          By: /s/ David A. Chazanovitz
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              David A. Chazanovitz
                              President and Chief Executive Officer
#### DAVID M. SHAPIRO and ADELINE SHAPIRO, Appellants v. TUMON BEACH HOTEL CORPORATION, Appellee

Civil No. 65-A

District Court of Guam Appellate Division

July 25, 1971

*200Before MUECKE, *Designated Judge,*District Court of Guam; BURNETT, *Chief Justice,*Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

OPINION

The defendants have appealed from the decision of the Island Court on the basis that the Island Court committed error. Among other alleged errors, appellants attack the following holding of the Island Court:

1. That appellants are not entitled to an injunction against appellee.

2. That appellees are entitled to damages in the sum of $350.00 for the maintaining by the appellants of an encroachment on the southerly wall of appellants’ building into .the adjoining right of way.

3. That appellants’ rights in Chamorrita Drive are those of ingress and egress only.

4. That the garbage can and platform, and storm drains, constitute a burden on the servient estate, and that appellants be required to remove these.

Study of the record and citations of law fail to reveal any clear error in the record as to any of the matters complained of except as the decision relates to the storm drains.

Appellants’ attack on the Island Court’s finding that appellants’ rights in Chamorrita Drive are those of egress and ingress only constitute a misreading of the' Island Court’s finding on this matter, since this finding does not include the word “only” and the question of the limits of appellants’ rights in Chamorrita Drive was not before the Island Court except as to certain specific allegations of excessive use relating to garbage cans, platforms, and storm drains.

As to the catch basin off drain pipes, this Court finds that there is no substantial evidence to support a holding that such basin and drains were an unreasonable use of *201Chamorrita Drive since the Island Court refused to permit appellants to put on evidence on this issue despite repeated offers of proof.

Appellees stipulated in open court at the time of the oral argument before this Court that they would agree to a remand to the Island Court for further evidence and argument on this issue of whether the basin and drains were an unreasonable use of Chamorrita Drive or in the alternative, that a judgment issue which will run with the land (now occupied by appellants adjacent to the basin and drains), that the catch basin and drains may remain in place, but that if offer of dedication of Chamorrita Drive is made to the Government of Guam and if acceptance by the Government is conditioned on the removal of such basin and drain, appellants and their successors in interest to the land they now occupy adjacent to the catch basin and drains would then agree to remove the catch basin and drains and agree to being enjoined from continuing to maintain them.

Appellants having agreed orally in open court in the presence of and with the concurrence of appellee to the latter alternative, it is so ordered and the case is remanded to the Island Court for a judgment consistent with this opinion.

As to all other matters, no clear error having been found, the judgment of the Island Court is affirmed.