alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

                    GE GLOBAL INSURANCE HOLDING CORPORATION
                          AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES


                           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 Annual Report of GE Global Insurance Holding  Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Marc A. Meiches, Chief 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, that to my 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  result of operations of
         the Company.






  /s/ Marc A. Meiches
--------------------------
Marc A. Meiches
Chief Financial Officer
March 7, 2003



                                       77
# C_2015389EN.01005402.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (DetergentOptimiser)

(Case T-707/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark DetergentOptimiser - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment))

(2015/C 389/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter and M. Neuner, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2014 (case R 172/2014-1), relating to an application for the word mark DetergentOptimiser as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000854858
<NAME>                        Ajay Sports, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         20
<SECURITIES>                                   291
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1730
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (193)
<INVENTORY>                                    16
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2827
<PP&E>                                         346
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (213)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2076
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          2239
<PREFERRED>                                    1250
<COMMON>                                       41
<OTHER-SE>                                     16685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18853
<SALES>                                        2397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2397
<CGS>                                          8
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (236)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (83)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (153)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (1338)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1491)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (41)




</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 22, 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00631

- CR

Chase Daniel Laird , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, K ELLY , AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the pa rties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgments of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgments of

conviction

. Becau se a ppellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs

is made.
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                              
|---- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     | 
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1086-120,
12th Floor 550 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2015, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC, as Operating Advisor, CITIBANK N.A., as Certificate Administrator and DEUTSCHE BANK
TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-GC33 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby
certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from September 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of
March 2016.



|                
|----------------
|/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice
President

Wells Fargo Bank



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

A.A.R., a child

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 372

[ December 15, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Lisa S. Small , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2020

- CJ

- 001816

- XXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Logan T. Mohs, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH , C.J., W ARNER and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2015046EN.01001701.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/17

---

Appeal brought on 23 May 2014 by ADR Center Srl against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 23 March 2014 in Case T-110/14: ADR Center Srl v European Commission

(Case C-259/14 P)

(2015/C 046/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: ADR Center Srl (represented by: L. Tantalo, advocate, G. De Palo, advocate)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 4 December 2014 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
1517 WEST FRONT STREET  SUITE 354  TYLER, TX 75702  TEL: 903-593-8471  FAX: 903-593-2193

Serving Anderson, Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Smith, Trinity, Upshur, Van 

Zandt and Wood Counties

www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us

CHIEF JUSTICE

JAMES T. WORTHEN

JUSTICES

BRIAN HOYLE

GREG NEELEY

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

CLERK

CATHY S. LUSK

CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

MARGARET HUSSEY

February 26, 2015

Ms. Lois Rogers

District Clerk, Smith County

Courthouse, Suite 204

100 North Broadway Avenue

Tyler, TX 75702-7201

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 12-13-00041-CR, 12-13-00042-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 007-1663-11, 007-1664-11

Style: Davina Wilson Moore

v.

The State of Texas

Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed herewith is the 

Mandate issued in the above causes. When the District or County Clerk has executed the 

Mandate in accordance with the opinion of this Court, the Clerk is requested to fill in the 

information below and to return the attached copy to this office.

Very truly yours,

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

CC: Mr. Michael J. West (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Morris Overstreet (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mr. Austin R. Jackson (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Mandate executed on __27th_ day of ____February__________, 2015.

Brief explanation of action taken: ______scanned________________________________

__________________Linda Rhymes__________________________District/County Clerk

FILE COPY FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 2/27/2015 9:31:27 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
#### § 1.361-1 Nonrecognition of gain or loss to corporations.

Section 361 provides the general rule that no gain or loss shall be recognized if a corporation, a party to a reorganization, exchanges property in pursuance of the plan of reorganization solely for stock or securities in another corporation, a party to the reorganization. This provision includes only stock and securities received in connection with a reorganization defined in section 368(a). It also includes nonvoting stock and securities in a corporation, a party to a reorganization, received in a transaction to which section 368(a)(1)(C) is applicable only by reason of section 368(a)(2)(B).
#### The State of Indiana *v.*Smith.

[No. 21,491.

Filed January 27, 1910.]

From Pike Circuit Court; *Frank Ely,*Special Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Ralph Smith. From a judgment releasing the defendant, during good behavior, from the payment of the fine imposed, the State appeals.

*Reversed.*

*James Bingham,*Attorney-General, *A.*<7. *Oavins, W. B. Thompson*and *E.'*If. *White,*for the State.

Myers, J.

The questions presented by the record in this case are the same as in *State*v. *Smith*(1910), *ante,*388, and for the reasons there given the judgment of July 23, 1908, is reversed, with instructions to the court below to sustain the demurrer of the State to appellee’s petition.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2004

PEGGY M. PLEDGER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES,

DOROTHEA DIX HOSPITAL,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-773-BR-I-5)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 3, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peggy M. Pledger, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lewis Voight, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Peggy Pledger appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her employment discrimination action. 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. See Pledger v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Resources, No.

CA-97-773-BR-I-5 (E.D.N.C. June 8, 1998). 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
§ 807.94 Format of a class III certification. ( a ) A class III certification submitted as part of a premarket notification shall state as follows: I certify, in my capacity as (position held in company), of (company name), that I have conducted a reasonable search of all information known or otherwise available about the types and causes of safety or effectiveness problems that have been reported for the (type of device). I further certify that I am aware of the types of problems to which the (type of device) is susceptible and that, to the best of my knowledge, the following summary of the types and causes of safety or effectiveness problems about the (type of device) is complete and accurate.
( b ) The statement in paragraph (a) of this section should be signed by the certifier, clearly identified as “class III certification,” and included at the beginning of the section of the premarket notification submission that sets forth the class III summary.
[59 FR 64296, Dec. 14, 1994]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS              
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         998,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,491,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   236,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,836,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,583,000
<PP&E>                                       8,827,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,535,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,908,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,172,000
<BONDS>                                      3,335,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          811,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,822,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,908,000
<SALES>                                      7,707,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,707,000
<CGS>                                        6,234,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,234,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (6,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             198,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (599,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (603,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 (603,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014431EN.01002401.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/24

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Schaeffler Technologies v Commission

(Case T-287/14 R)

((Application for interim measures - State aid - National support for the generation of renewable electricity - Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case))

(2014/C 431/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz and B. Wißmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 September 27, 2017

a0920

Order 

Clerk

September 27, 2017

155117

MARTEZ TILLMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155117

COA: 328520

Wayne CC: 11-004876-NO

PERFECT PITCHER SPORTS PUB, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2016 

judgment 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.
§ 1.1374-1 General rules and definitions. ( a ) *Computation of tax.* The tax imposed on the income of an S corporation by section 1374(a) for any taxable year during the recognition period is computed as follows— ( 1 ) Step One: Determine the net recognized built-in gain of the corporation for the taxable year under section 1374(d)(2) and § 1.1374-2;
( 2 ) Step Two: Reduce the net recognized built-in gain (but not below zero) by any net operating loss and capital loss carryforward allowed under section 1374(b)(2) and § 1.1374-5;
( 3 ) Step Three: Compute a tentative tax by applying the rate of tax determined under section 1374(b)(1) for the taxable year to the amount determined under paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
( 4 ) Step Four: Compute the final tax by reducing the tentative tax (but not below zero) by any credit allowed under section 1374(b)(3) and § 1.1374-6.
( b ) *Anti-trafficking rules.* If section 382, 383, or 384 would have applied to limit the use of a corporation's recognized built-in loss or section 1374 attributes at the beginning of the first day of the recognition period if the corporation had remained a C corporation, these sections apply to limit their use in determining the S corporation's pre-limitation amount, taxable income limitation, net unrealized built-in gain limitation, deductions against net recognized built-in gain, and credits against the section 1374 tax.
( c ) *Section 1374 attributes.* Section 1374 attributes are the loss carryforwards allowed under section 1374(b)(2) as a deduction against net recognized built-in gain and the credit and credit carryforwards allowed under section 1374(b)(3) as a credit against the section 1374 tax.
( d ) *Recognition period.* The recognition period is the 10-year (120-month) period beginning on the first day the corporation is an S corporation or the day an S corporation acquires assets in a section 1374(d)(8) transaction. For example, if the first day of the recognition period is July 14, 1996, the last day of the recognition period is July 13, 2006. If the recognition period for certain assets ends during an S corporation's taxable year (for example, because the corporation was on a fiscal year as a C corporation and changed to a calendar year as an S corporation or because an S corporation acquired assets in a section 1374(d)(8) transaction during a taxable year), the S corporation must determine its pre-limitation amount (as defined in § 1.1374-2(a)(1)) for the year as if the corporation's books were closed at the end of the recognition period.
( e ) *Predecessor corporation.* For purposes of section 1374(c)(1), if the basis of an asset of the S corporation is determined (in whole or in part) by reference to the basis of the asset (or any other property) in the hands of another corporation, the other corporation is a predecessor corporation of the S corporation.
[T.D. 8579, 59 FR 66463, Dec. 27, 1994]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
     
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          4,245
<SECURITIES>                                   40,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,520
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,946
<INVENTORY>                                     2,026
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               56,667
<PP&E>                                         14,529
<DEPRECIATION>                                  9,278
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 65,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,950
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       54,585
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   65,772
<SALES>                                        40,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               40,948
<CGS>                                          13,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 5,144
<INCOME-TAX>                                      947
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    4,297
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .32
        

</TABLE>