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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Ebix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended June 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Baum, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

2. The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:                      | /s/ Richard  J. Baum |   |
|--------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|                     |                 |
| Name:                    | Richard J.  Baum     |   |
|                     |                 |
| Chief  Financial Officer |                 |
|                     |                 |
| August 12,  2005         |                 |
|                          |                      |        |  |

 

----
#### Durden *v.*Harper *et al.*

No. 8309.

March 5, 1932.

Atkinson, J.

In this case the defendant in an action of complaint for land comes by direct bill of exceptions complaining of the verdict and assigning error in the refusal of certain requests to charge, and in directing the verdict for the plaintiffs, as to certain issues involved. There is no assignment of error on the final judgment that was entered upon the verdict. Moreover, “Where a case has been tried by a jury and a verdict rendered therein, and the losing party desires to test the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, a motion for a new trial is indispensable.” *Beall v. Mineral Tone Co.,*167 *Ca.*667 (146 S. E. 473). *Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*571
      *J. O. Webb, W. W. Dykes,*and *B. P. Jackson,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. W. Lankford*and IT. *T. Burkhalter,*contra.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DWIGHT CLAYTON BELTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RANDY GROUNDS, Warden; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15927

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-06360-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

 Submitted June 12, 2014** 

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Former California state prisoner Dwight Clayton Belton appeals pro se from

the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

alleging equal protection violations arising from an allegedly racially

discriminatory canteen incident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

FILED

JUN 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review de novo, Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013),

and we affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Belton failed

to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants acted with an

intent or purpose to discriminate against him on the basis of his race. See Furnace

v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or

purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected

class.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Belton’s motion for

appointment of counsel because Belton failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting

forth standard of review and explaining “exceptional circumstances” requirement). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Belton’s requests to

conduct additional discovery of eyewitnesses. See Tatum v. City of San Francisco,

441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and

explaining that summary judgment is appropriate “[a]bsent a showing by . . .

[plaintiff] that additional discovery would have revealed specific facts precluding

2 13-15927
summary judgment”). 

We reject Belton’s contention that the district court did not provide him with

a fair opportunity to prosecute his case. 

AFFIRMED.

3 13-15927
AFS-08-275-E 

Sep 23 2010 

 Exemption No. 10140 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-0432 

Mr. Joe Hicks 

Director of Operations 

TEMSCO Helicopters, Inc. 

P.O. Box 5057 

5411 North Tongass Highway 

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

Dear Mr. Hicks: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 25, 2008, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of TEMSCO Helicopters, Inc. (TEMSCO), for an exemption from §§ 136.9(a) and 

136.11(c)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, 

would allow TEMSCO to operate its helicopters over bodies of water and beyond shorelines 

crossed during commercial air tour flights with a life preserver for each occupant but without 

each occupant wearing a life preserver and without its helicopters being float equipped. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent. 

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 9934 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

concluded that the proposed operations, during which passengers would not be wearing life 

preservers and the aircraft would not be equipped with floats, could not be conducted with an 

equivalent level of safety to the rule because the operations would be conducted at altitudes 

equivalent to or exceeding the power-off gliding distance from the shoreline of the certificate 

holders assigned helicopters. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed denial 

of exemption; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of TEMSCO Helicopter, Inc., 

for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 136.9(a) and 136.11(c)(2). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 17

To amend paragraph 4 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To amend paragraph 4 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules

of the Senate.

1 Resolved, That paragraph 4 of rule XXV of the

2 Standing Rules of the Senate as amended, is amended by

3 inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(h)(1)’’ and by inserting the follow4 ing new paragraph thereafter:

5 ‘‘(B) A Senator who during the One Hundred and

6 Third Congress serves on the Committee on Environment

7 and Public Works, the Committee on Finance, and the

8 Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and

9 who serves as chairman of a committee listed in paragraph

10 2, may serve as chairman of two subcommittees of all com11 mittees listed in paragraph 2 of which he is a member.’’.
2

SRES 17 ATS

Æ
TSD Appendix B ConocoPhillips Subject-to-BART Heaters Emissions (lb/hr) EPN Description NO X (lb/hr) SO 2 (lb/hr) 100-H-1 Coker Charge Storage Heater 1.1684 0.3197
292-H-1 Light Distillate Gulfiner Reactor Heater 4.7289 0.7383
292-H-2 Light Distillate Gulfiner Stabilizer Heater 8.0138 1.2982 1291-H-2/3 FCCU Light/Heavy Feed Heater 71.0109 5.3903 191-H-2 Vacuum Charge Heater 44.7097 11.9380 891-H-1 Delayed Coker Charge Heater 41.1493 7.1165 491-H-l Alkylation Isostripper Reboiler 47.7521 6.4044
491-H-2 Alkylation Depropanizer Reboiler 6.2832 8.0248
293-H-I Heavy Distillate Gulfiner Reactor Feed Heater 7.9697 1.4381 293-H-2 Heavy Distillate Gulfiner Stabilizer Reboiler 15.0796 1.8236
1391-H-1 Catalytic Reformer Feed Heater No. 1 14.8812 10.1413 l391-H-2/3 Catalytic Reformer Feed Heater Nos. 2&3 71.5400 10.0090 1391-H-4 Depentanizer Reboiler 1.1354 5.6879 1391-H-5 Dry Reactivation Heater 25.3532 0.30862 1791-H-1 Reformate Splitter Reboiler 7.3414 3.6487
I792-H-l Hydrodealkylation Charge Heater 26.1799 4.9384 291-H-l Naphiner Reactor Feed Heater 20.6353 3.7809
291-H-2 Naphiner Deisohexanizer Reboiler 1.1684 2.9762
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, as subrogee of All Power,

Inc.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-15479

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01594-MCECKD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 12, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges and LASNIK,*** District

Judge.

 

FILED

FEB 17 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Security National Insurance Company appeals the district court’s Rule

12(b)(1) dismissal of its action alleging claims against the United States under the

Federal Tort Claims Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and

review de novo. Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction because neither the plaintiff insurance company, nor its insured (in

whose shoes the insurance company stands) filed an administrative claim prior to

filing suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113

(1993); Brady, 211 F.3d at 502-03. Security National’s arguments that it should be

excused from § 2675(a)’s exhaustion requirement because other parties with

overlapping interests have filed their own claims lack merit. Section 2675(a) is

jurisdictional. Brady, 211 F.3d at 502. In the absence of jurisdiction, Security

National’s arguments based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are beside the

point. Fed. R. Civ. P. 82; Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir.

2005). Procedural rules cannot create jurisdiction. See Canatella, 404 F.3d at

1113.

AFFIRMED.

2
# C_2014212EN.01003701.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/37

---

Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé Nutrition (Praebiotik)

(Case T-315/14)

2014/C 212/48

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hipp & Co. (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, A. Wagner and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nestlé Nutrition GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 February 2014 in Cases R 1171/2012-4 and R 1326/2012-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 February 2014 in Cases R 1171/2012-4 and R 1326/2012-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: the word mark ‘Praebiotik’ for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 32 — Community trade mark No 3 83  919

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Nestlé Nutrition GmbH

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for cancellation was granted in part

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the contested decision was partially annulled to the effect that the disputed mark was declared to be revoked in its entirety. The appeal of Hipp & Co. was dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | Infringement of Article 78 of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 78 of Regulation No 207/2009

---
# C_2015073EN.01003801.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/38

---

Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)

(Case T-763/14)

(2015/C 073/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Holding Soprema (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sopro Bauchemie GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘SOPRAPUR’– International registration designating the European Union No 977 642

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 in Case R 1370/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
§ 1.410(a)-3T Minimum age and service conditions (temporary). ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Special rule for plan with 2-year 100 percent vesting.* A plan which provides that after not more than 2 years of service each participant's right to his or her accrued benefit under the plan is completely nonforeitable (within the meaning of section 411 and the regulations thereunder) at the time such benefit accrues satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if the period of service required by the plan as a condition of participation does not extend beyond the later of— ( 1 ) [Reserved]
( 2 ) *Two years of service.* The date on which the employee completes 2 years of service. For employees not described in § 1.411(a)-3T(e)(1), which describes employees with one hour of service in any plan year beginning after December 31, 1988, or later in the case of certain collectively bargained plans, the preceding sentence shall be applied by substituting “3 years of service” for “2 years of service”.
[T.D. 8170, 53 FR 239, Jan. 6, 1988]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL A. BURRUS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 83 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of June, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### § 1.48D-0. Table of contents.

This section lists the table of contents for §§ 1.48D-1 through 1.48D-6.

## § 1.48D-1—1.48D-5 [Reserved]

## § 1.48D-6 Elective payment election.

(a) Elective payment election.

(1) In general.

(2) Partnerships and S corporations.

(3) Irrevocable.

(b) Pre-filing registration required.

(1) In general.

(2) Manner of registration.

(3) Members of a consolidated group.

(4) Timing of pre-filing registration.

(5) Each qualified investment in an advanced manufacturing facility must have its own registration number.

(6) Information required to complete the pre-filing registration process.

(7) Registration number.

(i) In general.

(ii) Registration number is only valid for one year.

(iii) Renewing registration numbers.

(iv) Amendment of previously submitted registration information if a change occurs before the registration number is used.

(v) Registration number is required to be reported on the return for the taxable year of the elective payment election.

(c) Time and manner of election.

(1) In general.

(2) Limitations.

(d) Special rules for partnerships and S corporations.

(1) In general.

(2) Election.

(i) Time and manner of election.

(ii) Effect of election.

(iii) Coordination with sections 705 and 1366.

(iv) Partner's distributive share.

(A) In general.

(B) Interim rule.

(C) Partnership requirements.

(v) S corporation shareholder's pro-rata share.

(vi) Timing of tax exempt income.

(3) Disregarded entity ownership.

(4) Electing partnerships in tiered structures.

(i) In general.

(ii) Electing partnerships in tiered structures; interim rule.

(5) Character of tax exempt income.

(6) Determination of amount of the section 48D credit.

(i) In general.

(ii) Application of section 49 at-risk rules to determination of section 48D credit for partnerships and S corporations.

(iii) Changes in at-risk amounts under section 49 at partner or shareholder level.

(7) Partnerships subject to subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Code.

(8) Example.

(e) Denial of double benefit.

(1) In general.

(2) Application of the denial of double benefit rule.

(3) Use of the section 48D credit for other purposes.

(4) Examples.

(i) Example 1.

(ii) Example 2.

(iii) Example 3.

(iv) Example 4.

(f) Excessive payment.

(1) In general.

(2) Reasonable cause.

(3) Excessive payment defined.

(4) Example.

(g) Basis reduction and recapture.

(1) In general.

(2) Basis adjustment.

(i) In general.

(ii) Basis adjustment by partnership or S corporation.

(iii) Basis adjustment of partners and S corporation shareholders.

(3) Recapture reporting.

(h) Applicability dates.

(1) In general.

(2) Prior taxable years.

[T.D. 9989, 89 FR 17606, Mar. 11, 2024]
(logo) CWCapital

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

**Annual Statement as toCompliance**

**For the Period of January1, 2016 to December 31, 2016**

** **

** **

**COMM 2015-CCRE26**

 

 

In accordance with Item 1123of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in §10.11 of thePooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for theabove-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital AssetManagement LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, isproviding this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following:

 

(A) a review of CWCAM’sactivities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the“Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and;

 

(B) that, to the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us. 

 

Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

 

 

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone 

President 

 

 

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814

www.cwcapital.com
EX-10.III.A.91



 





Exhibit 10(iii)(A)(91)




Description of the Change in Compensation for Non-Management Directors




In a December meeting of the Corporate Governance Committee (the “Committee”), the Committee
approved changes to the total compensation paid to non-management directors. Effective January 1,
2007, each non-management director will be paid an annual cash retainer of $80,000. The Committee has
eliminated the payment of board and committee attendance fees and has retained the payment of cash
retainers for any non-management director serving as a committee chairperson.



In addition, each non-management director will receive an annual equity grant having a value of
$80,000 on the date of grant. All equity grants will be subject to three year transfer
restrictions, except in the case of the retirement of a director.
October 27, 2015

Mr. Brian Jones

iDream Images, LLC

322 Devon Road

Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request posted to the docket on July 30, 2015, on behalf of 

iDream Images, LLC filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−3267, but we are unable to process 

your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the 

following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4