alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of DeutscheTelekom AG (the "Company"), doeshereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

TheAnnual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in theForm 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

|                      |  |                                                         |  |  |  |  |
|----------------------|--|---------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| Dated:March 30, 2004 |  | /s/ Kai-UweRicke                                        |
|                 |  | Name: Kai-Uwe RickeTitle: ChiefExecutiveOfficer         |
|                 |  |
|                 |  |
| Dated:March 30, 2004 |  | /s/ Dr.Karl-Gerhard Eick                                |
|                 |  | Name: Dr. Karl-GerhardEickTitle: Chief FinancialOfficer |
|                      |

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

 

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Ebix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Richard J. Baum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 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) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| By:                     | /s/ Richard J. Baum |   |
|-------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                    |                |
| Name:                   | Richard J. Baum     |   |
|                    |                |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |                |
|                    |                |
| November 11, 2005  |                |
|                         |                     |        |  |

 

1

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7768 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

265 Main Street in Philo, Ohio, as the ‘‘Samuel J. Mitchell Jr. Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Mr. BALDERSON (for himself, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Mr. LANDSMAN, Mr. 

CAREY, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. LATTA, and Mr. JORDAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 265 Main Street in Philo, Ohio, as the ‘‘Samuel J. Mitchell Jr. Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SAMUEL J. MITCHELL JR. POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 265 Main Street in Philo, Ohio, 

6 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Samuel J. Mitchell 

7 Jr. Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7768 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Samuel J. Mitchell 

3 Jr. Post Office’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of InZon Corporation
(formerly W-J International, Ltd.) ("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the dated indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that
to their knowledge:

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.


Dated: February 9, 2005             By: /s/ David F. Levy
                                        -----------------
		 		    	David F. Levy, President


Dated: February 9, 2005             By: /s/ Richard Dea
                                        ---------------
		 		    	Richard Dea, Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMILLAH DAUGHTRY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 199 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of November, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
39137.

#### HITCHCOCK, Administratrix v. ROCHELLE *et al.*

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

1. This was a suit originally brought to recover for personal injuries and property damage allegedly sustained in an intersection collision. Before the case came to trial, the plaintiff died and her administratrix was, by amendment, substituted as a party and the action was amended by adding allegations seeking the recovery of medical and hospitalization expenses, funeral expenses and damages for the death of the plaintiff which was alleged to have proximately resulted from the injury sustained in the collision. No question is presented in this court as to the sufficiency of the petition. On the trial of the case, much of the evidence as to the negligence of the drivers of the two automobiles involved in the collision was in sharp conflict, but when the evidence is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff against whom the verdict was directed *(Curry v. Roberson,*87 Ga. App. 785, 786, 75 SE2d 282), it was sufficient to authorize the jury to conclude that Elsie Reed, *776the deceased plaintiff in this case, was driving the automobile involved in the collision; that it was her automobile, that is, that she owned it; and, that it was was damaged as the proximate result of the collision with the defendant’s automobile. The witnesses variously testified that there was only one person in the automobile; that the deceased was in the Mercury and that the Mercury involved in the collision was the Mercury owned by Elsie Reed. The repairman testified that he made an estimate and repaired an automobile similar to that described by other witnesses as having been involved in the collision and belonging to Elsie Reed, and a repair bill made out to Elsie Reed for work on a 1957 Mercury was introduced in evidence. A copy of an automobile registration certificate registering a 1957 Mercury Sedan in the name of Elsie Reed was also introduced in evidence. “Concordance of name alone is some evidence of identity. . . In civil- suits parties are generally relieved from the onus of proving identity, as it is a fact generally more easily disproved than established.” *Code*§ 38-304. Since the evidence as thus outlined did not demand a verdict for the defendant at least as to the property damage to Elsie Reed’s automobile *(Ready-Mix Concrete Co. v.*Rape, 98 Ga. App. 503, 514 (5), 106 SE2d 429), it was error for the trial judge to direct a verdict for the defendant as complained of in ground 4 of the motion. *Norris v. Coffee,*206 Ga. 759 (4) (58 SE2d 812).

Decided November 13, 1961.

*Emory Kinard, McFarland ■& Cooper, Martin McFarland, Augustine Sams,*for plaintiff in error.

*Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, B. Hugh Burgess, Edward E. Dorsey, C. B. Rogers,*contra.

2. None of the other special grounds of the motion for a new trial is meritorious and the trial judge did not err in overruling those grounds.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Eberhardt and Custer, JJ., concur.*
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 24

- 11403

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
JENNY LINDSAY,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, et al.,

Defendants,

EMORY UNIVERSITY, DIRECTOR HEIDI FAENZA, Individually, as former Director of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions, DIRECTOR JOHN EARLES, Individually, and in his official capacity as Director USCA11 Case: 24-11403 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2024 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 24

- 11403
of Georgia Office of Bar Admissions,

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:22

- cv

- 00886

- WMR

____________________
Before L AGOA , B RASHER , and A BUDU , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Jenny Lindsay, pro se , appeals (1) the district court’s September 11, 2023 order and the related final judgment granting Emory University’s (“Emory”) and Heidi Faenza and John Earles’s motions to dismiss Lindsay’s first amended complaint and strike her second amended complaint, and terminating as moot her motions for default judgment and to correct filing ; and (2) the district court’s March 27, 2024 order partially granting her motion to alter or amend the judgment. Those orders are not final or appealable
, however, because the March 27 order reinstated Emory as a defendant , and, thus, rendered the proceedings non

- final. See
28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal , 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that a final order ends the litigation on themerits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment). USCA11 Case: 24-11403 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2024 Page: 2 of 324

- 11403 Opinion of the Court 3

Nor did the district court certify its September 11, 2023 judgment for immediate review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant , 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Further, the district court’s September 11 and March 27, 2024 order s are not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final order resolving the case on the merits. See Plaintiff A v. Schair , 744 F.3d 1247, 1252

- 53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, inter alia
, is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”)

. Accordingly, t his appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte , for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40

- 3 and all other applicable rules. USCA11 Case: 24-11403 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2024 Page: 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.3
 THE TIMBERLAND COMPANY
 2009 EXECUTIVE LONG TERM INCENTIVE PROGRAM
 PERFORMANCE VESTED  STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 
 th
 shares on the first anniversary of the date on which an Award
Payout (as defined in the 2009 LTIP) is approved by the Committee (as defined
in the 2009 LTIP)shares on the second anniversary of the date on which an Award Payout is
approved by the Committeeshares on the third anniversary of the date on which an Award Payout is
approved by the Committee
  THE TIMBERLAND COMPANYByACKNOWLEDGED AND RECEIVED
 Date:
    
    
    
    
    
    Optionees
Signature




---



##### 



PERFORMANCE VESTED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 Manner of Exercise; Payment provided however
 Adjustment of PVSO and Option Price
 Foreign Exchange/Ownership Requirements and Risk
 Non-transferability of PVSOs
 Death or Other Termination of Employment




---



##### 



Provisions of the Plan Documents
 Employment
 Plan Administration
 Miscellaneous
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.3840 Sirolimus test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A sirolimus test system is a device intended to quantitatively determine sirolimus concentrations in whole blood. Measurements are used as an aid in management of transplant patients receiving therapy with sirolimus.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Sirolimus Test Systems.” See § 862.1(d) for the availability of this guidance document.
[69 FR 58259, Sept. 30, 2004]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,508
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,886
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   750
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,049
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          25,367
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            25,929
<LOANS>                                        163,231
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,826
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 229,485
<DEPOSITS>                                     198,451
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,021
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,870
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,143
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 229,485
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,528
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  492
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   102
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,122
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,446
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,446
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,676
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      255
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    665
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         503
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    1.31
<LOANS-NON>                                        954
<LOANS-PAST>                                        47
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     68
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,745
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      183
<RECOVERIES>                                         9
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,826
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,560
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            266
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3110 *Campylobacter fetus* serological reagents. ( a ) *Identification. Campylobacter fetus* serological reagents are devices that consist of antisera conjugated with a fluorescent dye used to identify *Campylobacter fetus* from clinical specimens or cultured isolates derived from clinical specimens. The identification aids in the diagnosis of diseases caused by this bacterium and provides epidemiological information on these diseases. *Campylobacter fetus* is a frequent cause of abortion in sheep and cattle and is sometimes responsible for endocarditis (inflammation of certain membranes of the heart) and enteritis (inflammation of the intestines) in humans.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls).
# C_2015190EN.01003101.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/31

---

Order of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — Sabic Polyolefine v Commission

(Case T-279/14) (1)

(2015/C 190/35)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

---
#### Luttgen *v.*Andrews *et al.*

Gilbert, J.

1. Where an, administrator has obtained an order for sale of real estate as provided in the Civil Code (1910), § 5176, and has advertised the sale, and a claim is interposed as therein provided, the sale of the property advertised and claimed should be postponed until after the termination of the claim case. Civil Code (1910), § 5179.

2. In the present instance, after the order of sale had been procured, and after the filing of the claim, the administrator sold the property and placed the purchasers in possession. The purchasers, being in possession, filed the present suit, praying that the defendant be enjoined from committing acts of continuous trespass upon the property. The court granted an interlocutory injunction. The purchasers presumably are still in possession. While, under the Code, § 5179, the sale of the property *should*have been postponed until after the termination of the claim case, the deed executed by the administrator to the purchasers being valid on its face, the sale, being regular in all respects except for the failure to observe the law just cited, is not void, but voidable. Its validity will depend upon the outcome of the claim case. If the final judgment is against the claimant, the defect in the sale because of failure to postpone as required by § 5179 will be cured, and title will vest in the purchaser. On the contrary, if final judgment in the claim case should result in favor of the claimant, the administrator’s deed would become null and void. This ruling protects the interests of all parties. It is unnecessary, illogical, and not required by any statute or controlling decision, to hold that the deed must be declared void and the sale set aside. So to do will place the expense of another advertisement and sale, where there is no claim that the property was sold for a less amount because of the pendency of the claim case. It is not shown that the purchasers had any actual notice or knowledge of the pending claim.

3. In *Hull*v. *Watkins,*134 *Ga.*779 (68 S. E. 506), the deed of an admin*779istrator who had obtained leave to sell property held adversely by a third party, pending the trial of a claim to the land, was held void. But in that ease the decision was based on the fact that the administrator sold land held adversely to the estate by a third party; and under the Civil Code (1910), § 4033, it was essential that he should first recover possession. In this case it must be assumed from the facts appearing in the record that the property was not held adversely, and that the administrator had possession. Where it appears that the administrator was in possession, the burden is upon the claimant to show title. *Powell*v. *Westmoreland,*60 *Ga.*572.

No. 8946.

April 16, 1932.

*George H. Perry*and *H. A.*Wilkinson, for plaintiff in error.

*A. L.*Miller, contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7416
DENNIS RAY GRAVES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LONNIE M. SAUNDERS, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-264-R) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Ray Graves, Appellant Pro Se. Robert B. Condon, Assistant Attorney General, Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Graves v. Saunders , No. CA-95-264-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 1995). We further deny Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1585 Human placental lactogen test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A human placental lactogen test system is a device intended to measure the hormone human placental lactogen (HPL), (also known as human chorionic somatomammotrophin (HCS)), in maternal serum and maternal plasma. Measurements of human placental lactogen are used in the diagnosis and clinical management of high-risk pregnancies involving fetal distress associated with placental insufficiency. Measurements of HPL are also used in pregnancies complicated by hypertension, proteinuria, edema, post-maturity, placental insufficiency, or possible miscarriage.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130599 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130599 

 COA: 266178 

Kent CC: 02-005771-FH 

JESUS JUVENCIO QUINTANILLA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the amended application for leave to appeal the February 3, 

2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting 

statement in People v Houlihan, 480 Mich 1165 (2008). 

d0616 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk