alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 on Form 10-Q of MicroTel
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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, 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
Company.

Dated: November 5, 2003                       By: /s/ CARMINE T. OLIVA
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                  Carmine T. Oliva
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (principal executive officer)


Dated: November 5, 2003                       By: /s/ RANDOLPH D. FOOTE
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                  Randolph D. Foote
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  (principal financial officer)

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, 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.
**EXHIBIT 21**The active subsidiaries of Day International Group, Inc. are listed below, do business under thename under which they are organized, and are included in the consolidated financial statements ofthe Company. The names, jurisdiction of incorporation of such subsidiaries, and percentage ofvoting securities owned by the Company are set forth below.       **Jurisdiction in** **Percentage of**  **Which** **Voting****Name of Subsidiary** **Incorporated** **Securities owned**Day International, Inc. Delaware 100%Varn International, Inc. Delaware 100% (1)Day International Finance, Inc. Delaware 100% (1)Network Distribution International Delaware 100% (1)Network Distribution International, Inc. Massachusetts 100% (2)Day International (U.K.) Holdings Limited Massachusetts 100% (1)Day International (U.K.), Ltd. United Kingdom 100% (3)Varn Products Co., Ltd. United Kingdom 100% (3)Day International France S.A.R.L United Kingdom 100% (1)Day International de Mexico S.A. de C.V. France 100% (1)Varn Products Company Pty., Ltd. Mexico 100% (1)Varn Pressroom Products Sdn. Bhd. Australia Malaysia 100% (1)Varn International (Canada) Limited Canada 100% (1)R T C do Brasil Ltda. Brazil 55% (1)Day Germany Holdings GmbH Germany 100% (1)Day International Group GmbH Germany 100% (4)Rotec Verwaltungs GmbH Germany 100% (5)Rotec Hulsensysteme GmbH & Co. KG Germany 100% (6)Rotec Czech s.r.o. Czech Republic 85% (7)ATPG Textile Products Group GmbH Germany 100% (4)Day International (BRD) GmbH Germany 100% (4)ZAO Day International Russia 75% (8) (1) Subsidiary of Day International, Inc. (2) Subsidiary of Network Distribution International (3) Subsidiary of Day International (U.K.) Holdings Limited (4) Subsidiary of Day Germany Holdings GmbH (5) Subsidiary of Day International Group GmbH (6) Subsidiary of Rotec Verwaltungs GmbH (7) Subsidiary of Rotec Hulsensysteme GmbH Co. & KG (8) Subsidiary of Day International (BRD) GmbH
74
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1385 Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) diagnostic contact lens. ( a ) *Identification.* A polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) diagnostic contact lens is a device that is a curved shell of PMMA intended to be applied for a short period of time directly on the globe or cornea of the eye for diagnosis or therapy of intraocular abnormalities.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
**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 Quarterly Report ofebix.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period that ended June 30,2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Richard  J. Baum, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to  906of 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 result of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date:  | August 13, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Richard J. Baum     |   |   |
|--------|-----------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |            |   | Richard J. Baum         |   |
|   |            |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10357 Conference Calendar

__________________
EDGAR LEE DEARS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus HORACE SCOTT, Parole Supervisor; CHARLES MARTIN, Hearing Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-209-Y

- - - - - - - - - - August 24, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Edgar Lee Dears challenges the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in fact or law. A § 1915(d) dismissal is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Ancar v. Sara Plasma, Inc. , 964 F.2d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1992).No. 95-10357 -2- Claims alleging "harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid" cannot be brought under § 1983 unless that "conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Heck applies to proceedings which call into question the fact or duration of parole. Jackson v. Vannoy , 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1995), petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 15, 1995) (No. 94-9704). When a claim may be dismissed on the ground of absolute immunity, that route should be taken without considering a Heck dismissal. Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Dears does not allege that his sentence or any revocation proceeding has been reversed, expunged, or set aside by a state court, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, Martin's participation in the quasi-judicial activity of revoking parole afforded him absolute immunity from damages. See Walter v. Torres , 917 F.2d 1379, 1383 (5th Cir. 1990). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed his complaint.
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

      CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 on Form 10-Q of MicroTel
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002
(the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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, 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
Company.

Dated: August 14, 2002                             By: /s/ CARMINE T. OLIVA
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Carmine T. Oliva
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MicroTel
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002
(the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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, 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
Company.

Dated: August 14, 2002                              By: /s/ RANDOLPH D. FOOTE
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Randolph D. Foote
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
# C_2016038EN.01001002.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main v Duval GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-44/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Position 9025 - Concept of ‘thermometer’ - Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature to be used on one occasion only))

(2016/C 038/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main

Applicant:

Defendant: Duval GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Heading 9025 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 must be interpreted as covering ambient temperature indicators made of paper, in some circumstances covered with plastic film, such as the goods at issue in the main proceedings, which, by the effect of a change in colour, indicate, irreversibly and without the possibility of subsequent re-use, whether one or more threshold temperatures have been reached.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Name                                                    State of Incorporation
-----------------------------------------------         -----------------------
Technology Service Group, Inc.                          Delaware
Elcotel Direct, Inc.                                    Delaware
Public Communication - I Corporation                    Delaware
International Service Technologies, Inc. (a
  subsidiary of Technology Service Group, Inc.)         Delaware
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                       2002 CUSTOMER SERVICE/RESERVATIONS
                         NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN

         SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., a Texas corporation (the "Company"), hereby
formulates and adopts this Amendment No. 1 to the Company's 2002 Customer
Service/Reservations Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan (the "Plan").

         1. The first paragraph of Paragraph 5 of the Plan is hereby amended to
read as follows:

         Subject to the provisions of paragraph 12, the number of shares of the
         Company's Common Stock subject at any one time to options, plus the
         number of such shares then outstanding pursuant to exercises of
         options, granted under this Plan, shall not exceed 26,000,000 shares.
         If, and to the extent the options granted under this Plan terminate or
         expire without having been exercised, new options may be granted with
         respect to the shares covered by such terminated or expired options;
         provided that the granting and terms of such new options shall in all
         respects comply with the provisions of this Plan.

         2. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full
force and effect.

         EXECUTED effective March 20, 2003.

                                    SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.



                                    By:      /s/ Deborah Ackerman
                                          --------------------------------------

                                    Its:     Vice President and General Counsel
                                          --------------------------------------
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





|Date: February 22, 2005 | /s/ John P. Manning        
|----------------------- | ---------------------------
|                        | John P. Manning            
|                        | Principal Executive Officer
|                        |                            
|                        |                            
|                        |
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.3300 Surgical mesh. ( a ) *Identification.* Surgical mesh is a metallic or polymeric screen intended to be implanted to reinforce soft tissue or bone where weakness exists. Examples of surgical mesh are metallic and polymeric mesh for hernia repair, and acetabular and cement restrictor mesh used during orthopedic surgery.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     WINSTON RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULES
       FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                     000815274
<NAME> WINSTON RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSDIARIES                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           971,000
<SECURITIES>                                     502,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,247,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     100,000
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,794,000
<PP&E>                                           1,068,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   503,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   10,883,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,686,000
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         32,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,843,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     10,883,000
<SALES>                                          14,409,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 14,409,000
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    11,393,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,372,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  658,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     303,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              355,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     355,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .10
        

</TABLE>
39179.

#### CARLOCK v. EMERY.

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. An order sustaining a demurrer to a motion made pursuant to *Code*§ 9-604 to require counsel to produce, prove and show the authority under which he appears in the cause and to disclose the name of the party or parties who employed him and the name of the real party at interest is not a final judgment that may be reviewed by bill of exceptions to this court. *Code*§ 6-701, as amended; *Grier v. Grier,*100 Ga. App. 322 (111 SE2d 256); *Medernach v. Bazemore,*100 Ga. App. 721 (112 SE2d 272); *Johnson v. Battle,*120 Ga. 649 (48 SE 128). Such an order makes no final disposition of the cause. See *Felker v. Johnson,*189 Ga. 797, 802 (7 SE2d 668).

*784Decided November 15, 1961.

*George W. Adams,*for plaintiff in error.

*Frank M. Gleason, Wayne Snow, Jr.,*contra.

2. An assignment of error that “the court erred in that the court failed to make or conduct an inquiry or investigation in this cause, when it became known and apparent to the court, upon the face of the pleadings in said cause, all of which was before and considered by the court, showing that the attorney purported to represent at one and the same time, and in the same cause of action, namely”: an insurance adjuster, an insurance company and an insured, does not assign error on any ruling or judgment of the court and presents nothing for consideration here. “Where there is no assignment of error on amy ruling or judgment of the court below, the writ of error will be dismissed.” Leverett, Hall, Christopher, Geor- . gia Procedure & Practice, p. 543, § 23-9.

3. Even if the ruling or order complained of would have resulted in a dismissal of the plaintiff's petition had it been made as contended for by plaintiff in error (though it would not have done so here); such ruling or order would not now be reviewable, since the defendant has a cross-action pending. *Taylor v. Cook,*206 Ga. 829 (59 SE2d 243); *Chemetron Corp. v. Southern Nitrogen Co.,*102 Ga. App. 577, 580 (117 SE2d 180), and cases therein cited. “This court is! without jurisdiction to entertain a bill of exceptions which fails to except to a final judgment.” *Southern Ry. Co. v. Floyd County,*37 Ga. App. 689 (1) (141 SE 497); *Willis v. Daniel,*39 Ga. App. 670 (148 SE 301).

Accordingly the bill of exceptions must be and it is hereby dismissed. Since the dismissal carries with it the taxing of the costs on appeal against plaintiff in error, it is unnecessary to pass on the motion of the defendant in error to so tax the costs of including superfluous, immaterial and irrelevant matter in the record.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Carlisle P. J., and Custer, J., concur.*