alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

The undersigned officer of First National Lincoln Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act.In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

Date: March 14, 2008

 

| /s/ F. STEPHEN WARD |
|---------------------|

F. Stephen Ward

Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 150.6 Signing of papers.

All formal papers shall be signed and shall show, typewritten or printed, the signer's name, address, military grade (if any), and the capacity in which the paper is signed. Such signature constitutes a certification that the statements made therein are true and correct to the best of the knowledge, information, and belief of the persons signing the paper and that the paper is filed in good faith and not for purposes of unnecessary delay.
#### WHIPPLE et al., Respondents, v. WEBB, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 10, 1905.)

Action by Charles R. Whipple and James N. Robinson against Jennie Webb, impleaded with another. No opinion. Judgment (89 N. Y. Supp. 900) unanimously affirmed, with costs.
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 – Commission v Sweden**

**(Case C‐186/05)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – National monopoly on retail sales of alcoholic beverages – Importation by private individuals prohibited

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) (see para. 26, operative part)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – National legislation relating to a national monopoly on retail sales of alcoholic beverages prohibiting the direct importation of such beverages by private individuals. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages by private individuals acting by their designated independent intermediaries or professional transporters, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC and that prohibition cannot be regarded as being justified under Article 30 EC; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
(77 App. Div. 47.)

#### SMITH v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November Term, 1902.)

1. Costs — Extra Allowance — Difficult and Extraordinary Case.

An action for personal injury from collision of a train with a team at a railroad crossing, if difficult, is not extraordinary, within Code Civ. Proc. § 3253, authorizing an extra allowance of costs in a difficult and extraordinary case.

Appeal from special term, Ontario county.

Action by Porter D. Smith against the Lehigh Valley Railroad, Company for damages for personal injuries to plaintiff from a collision at a railroad crossing of a train with his carriage. From an order granting plaintiff an extra allowance of costs of $400 (being 5 per cent, on the verdict of $8,000 recovered by plaintiff), defendant appeals.

Reversed.

See 79 N. Y. Supp. 106, 1147.

Argued before McLENNAN, SPRING, WILLIAMS, and HISCOCK, JJ.

Martin Carey and James McC. Mitchell, for appellant.

Thomas Raines, for respondent.

WILLIAMS, J.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.

In order to authorize the granting of "an extra allowance, a case must be both difficult and extraordinary. Code Civ. Proc. § 3253. While a railroad crossing accident case may be difficult and require much labor and expense in the trial, such a case cannot be said, in any sense, to be extraordinary. Cases of this kind are very common. Our courts are continually trying them and reviewing them on appeal. Extra allowances should not be granted in these cases unless they come clearly within the provisions of the statute. The verdicts are ordinarily large enough, and create a sufficient burden upon the railroads, without granting extra allowances. In this case the plaintiff is adequately compensated in the verdict and the statutory costs. The order should therefore be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion, denied. All concur.
#### In the Matter of Dorothy Rizzo, Respondent, v. Newton R. Rizzo, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court denying motion to dismiss the proceeding, continuing the restraining order contained in the order to show cause, and awarding custody of the infant to petitioner with right of visitation to Newton R. Rizzo.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### § 1802.21 Receipt, recording, and tasking.

The Coordinator shall within ten (10) days record each challenge received under this part, acknowledge receipt to the authorized holder, and task the originator and other interested parties. Additional taskings, as required during the review process, shall be accomplished within five (5) days of notification.
Exhibit 32


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


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tradequest International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2003 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
Johnson, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.

September 22, 2003               /s/ Peter Johnson
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Peter Johnson
                                 Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>




Certification of Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tradequest International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Peter Johnson, Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.

September 22, 2003               /s/ Peter Johnson
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Peter Johnson
                                 Chief Financial Officer
§ 1290.3 Policy. ( a ) It is the policy of HQ DLA that the Heads of DLA PLFAs will take such steps as are necessary to prevent offenses. Emphasis will be placed on prevention rather than apprehension and prosecution of offenders.
( b ) The procedures outlined in this part 1290 may, at the discretion of the Head of the activity concerned, be invoked in lieu of the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to deal with minor offenses of a civil nature, other than violations of state traffic laws, committed by military personnel. These procedures may also be invoked to deal with nontraffic minor offenses committed by civilian personnel.
### §308604. Cooperative agreements and memoranda of understanding

The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements and memoranda of understanding with, and provide technical assistance to, the heads of other Federal agencies, States, units of local government, Tribal governments, regional governmental bodies, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, and private entities—

(1) to achieve the purposes of this chapter; and

(2) to ensure effective coordination of the Federal elements and non-Federal elements provided a grant or other assistance under the Program with System units and programs of the Service.

(Added Pub. L. 117–328, div. DD, title VI, §643(a), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5614.)
# C_2023056EN.01001501.xml

| 15.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/15

---

Notice for the attention of Zimbabwe Defence Industries, an entity to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/339 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe, apply

(2023/C 56/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of the entity that appears in Annex I to Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/339 (2), and in Annex III to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 (3), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Zimbabwe.

The Council of the European Union has decided that the entity that appears in the abovementioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/101/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 314/2004.

The attention of the entity concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s), as indicated in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 314/2004, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 7 of the Regulation).

The entity concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 November 2023, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include it on the abovementioned list be reconsidered. Any such request should be sent to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the entity concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 42, 16.2.2011, p. 6.

(2)  OJ L 47, 15.2.2023, p. 51.

(3)  OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 1.

---
### §3113. Restriction on reemployment after conviction of certain crimes

An employee shall be separated from service and barred from reemployment in the Federal service, if—

(1) the employee is convicted of a violation of section 201(b) of title 18; and

(2) such violation related to conduct prohibited under section 1010(a) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(a)).

(Added Pub. L. 105–61, title VI, §638(a), Oct. 10, 1997, 111 Stat. 1316.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 105–61, title VI, §638(c), Oct. 10, 1997, 111 Stat. 1317, provided that: "This section [enacting this section] shall apply during fiscal year 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter."
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-15-00544-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 2010-40764

Style: Terry Neff and Iron Workers Mid- South Pension Fund

v Nicholas F. Brady, David J. Butters, William E. Macaulay, Robert B. Millard, Robert 

K. Moses, Jr., Robert A Rayne, Bernard J. Duroc-Danner and Burt M. Martin

Date motion filed*: June 1, 2017

Type of motion: Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Stacy M. Neal)

Party filing motion:

Appellees Nicholas F. Brady, David J. Butters, William E. Macaulay, Robert B. Millard, 

Robert K. Moses, Jr., and Robert A Rayne

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature:/s/ Terry Jennings 

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of 

Date: June 8, 2017
§ 1651.3 Procedures for taking an appeal. ( a ) When the Director of Selective Service appeals to a district appeal board he shall place in the registrant's file a written statement of his reasons for taking such appeal. When an appeal is taken by the Director, the registrant will be notified that the appeal has been taken, the reason therefor, and that the registrant may appear in person before the appeal board in accord with § 1651.4(e).
( b ) The registrant may appeal the classification action of the local board by filing with it a written notice of appeal. The registrant's notice of appeal need not be in a particular form but must include the name of the registrant and his request. Any notice shall be liberally construed so as to permit the appeal.
( c ) The registrant may also request an opportunity to appear in person before the district appeal board and such appeal will be considered by the board having jurisdiction over the local board which last classified him.
( d ) The registrant may attach to his appeal a statement specifying the reasons he believes the classification action that he is appealing is inappropriate, directing attention to any information in his file, and setting out any information relevant to his claim.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment and Earnings in the Engineering Profession, 1929 to 1934

              																	Fraser, Andrew					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Employment and Earnings in the Engineering Profession, 1929 to 1934 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 682*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										1941,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4182,			accessed on September 9, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### In the Matter of J. Lincoln Morris, Respondent, v. Pepsi-Cola Company et al., Appellants, and Donald M. Kendall et al., Respondents.

Judgment under article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules directing an inspection of corporate books and records, unanimously affirmed, with costs to petitioner-respondent. We do not reach the question as to choice of law regarding a director’s right to inspection and examination of the books and records of a foreign corporation. Whether Delaware law applies or New York law governs is immaterial in the posture of the instant case. For even if Delaware law limits the right of inspection by a director to proper corporate purposes and proper motivation, the record herein wholly fails to show an improper motive or to create any issue of fact on that score which would require a hearing. Hence, whether petitioner’s rights as a director are absolute or qualified, the inspection ordered herein was *652properly granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, J J.
#### STERLING et al. v. MURRAY et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by John W. Sterling and others against Henry Murray and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, upon payment of $10 costs, and, upon payment of an additional $10, leave given to apply to the court below to open default.
§ 1621.1 Reporting by registrants of their current status. Until otherwise notified by the Director of Selective Service, it is the duty of every registrant who registered after July 1, 1980: ( a ) To notify the System within 10 days of any change in the following items of information that he provided on his registration form: name, current mailing address and permanent residence address; and
( b ) To submit to the classifying authority, all information concerning his status within 10 days after the date on which the classifying authority mails him a request therefor, or within such longer period as may be fixed by the classifying authority; and
( c ) Who has a postponement of induction, or has been deferred or exempted from training and service, to notify the System immediately of any changes in facts or circumstances relating to the postponement, deferment or exemption; and
( d ) Who has a postponement of examination, to notify the System immediately of any changes in facts or circumstances relating to the postponement.
[52 FR 24454, July 1, 1987]
# C_2008197EN.01001901.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/19

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 — Hoechst v Commission

(Case T-410/03) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in sorbates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Calculation of the amount of the fines - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances - Principle non bis in idem - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Access to the file - Duration of the procedure)

non bis in idem

(2008/C 197/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented initially by M. Klusmann and V. Turner, then by M. Klusmann, V. Turner and M. Rüba, and finally by M. Klusmann and V. Turner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by W. Mölls, O. Beynet and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by W. Mölls and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents, assisted by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment, so far as the applicant is concerned, of Commission Decision 2005/493/EC of 1 October 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Chisso Corporation, Daicel Chemical Industries Ltd, Hoechst AG, The Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co. Ltd and Ueno Fine Chemicals Industry Ltd (Case No COMP/E 1/37.370 — Sorbates) (Summary in OJ 2005 L 182, p. 20), or, in the alternative, a reduction to an appropriate level of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Hoechst GmbH at EUR 74.25 million. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Hoechst GmbH at EUR 74.25 million.

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action.

| 3. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.

1

---