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

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

Created by Section 906

of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

The undersigned officer of FileNet Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

 (i)           the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

 (ii)          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  March 10, 2006 |  
 
*/s/ Sam M. Auriemma***

Sam M. Auriemma

Executive Vice President

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

 

 

 

 

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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                          71,528
<SECURITIES>                                    31,581
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               188,262
<PP&E>                                         129,521
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (88,928)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 240,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,485
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,212
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,246
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   240,892
<SALES>                                        199,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               347,120
<CGS>                                           25,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               212,015
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,039
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,362
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,677
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,677
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





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 Union Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Kenneth D. GibbonsKenneth D. GibbonsChief Executive Officer








March 28, 2011
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connectionwith the annual report of Paulson Capital Corp., Inc.” (Company”) on Form10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carol A. Rice, ChiefFinancial 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:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Carol A.  Rice       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Carol A.  Rice           |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer |   |
| March 29,  2004          |   |

 

----
# South Sudan

81 items

        -    Report  		2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: South Sudan	  June 25, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: South Sudan	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Travel of Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan	  May 8, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		New U.S. Humanitarian Assistance for the South Sudan Crisis Response	  Ned PriceApril 15, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: South Sudan	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Key Outcomes at the 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council	  March 24, 2021 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2021 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees in South Sudan	  January 26, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: South Sudan	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 5 of the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-441)	  August 7, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: South Sudan	  June 25, 2020 

previous page1…456789next page

Back to Top
# C_2006096EN.01001901.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/19

---

Action brought on 21 February 2006 — Harry's Morato v OHIM

(Case T-52/06)

(2006/C 96/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Harry's Morato SpA (Altavilla Vicentina, Italy) (represented by: Niccoló Ferretti, Giovanni Casucci, Fabio Trevisan, lawyers)

Applicant

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero OhG mbH

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend decision R 600/2005-1 of the First Board of Appeal of 16 December 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend decision R 600/2005-1 of the First Board of Appeal of 16 December 2005;

| — | call on the OHIM to immediately register the trade mark ‘Morato’ further to the application for registration No 1 849 439 and subsequent restriction, in the absence of any real subjective impediment and in any case in view of the fact that it does not conflict with the trade mark ‘MORATO’, and order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

call on the OHIM to immediately register the trade mark ‘Morato’ further to the application for registration No 1 849 439 and subsequent restriction, in the absence of any real subjective impediment and in any case in view of the fact that it does not conflict with the trade mark ‘MORATO’, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Morato’ (application for registration No 1 849 439), for goods in Class 30.

Community trade mark concerned

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: FERRERO OHG mbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘MORETTO’ (No 39 707 273), for goods in Class 30.

Mark or sign cited in opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed and refusal of the application for registration.

Decision of the Opposition Division

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Lapse of the trade mark ‘MORETTO’ on grounds of lack of use, and the incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (risk of confusion).

Pleas in law

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2951 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 2951

  To protect United States taxpayers by preventing the use of Federal 
   funds for construction of a dam on the American River at Auburn, 
                              California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 1996

  Mr. Petri introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
      Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To protect United States taxpayers by preventing the use of Federal 
   funds for construction of a dam on the American River at Auburn, 
                              California.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) the construction of a dam on the North Fork of the 
        American River at Auburn, California was rejected by Congress 
        on September 23, 1993, when a bipartisan majority of the House 
        of Representatives voted 273-140 to delete a proposed 
        authorization for Federal appropriations for such construction; 
        and
            (2) the Federal funding share for such construction would 
        cost Federal taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars--a 
        Federal expenditure that is not affordable or justifiable.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING.

    (a) Prohibition on Use.--No funds appropriated to or made available 
to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Interior before, 
on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated or 
expended to construct a dam on the North Fork of the American River at 
Auburn, California.
    (b) Prohibition of Appropriations.--No funds may be appropriated or 
made available for construction of a dam on the North Fork of the 
American River at Auburn, California.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.684 Prehearing and summary judgment. ( a ) *Prehearing.* The hearing officer may schedule a prehearing conference if he or she believes that a conference would more clearly define the issues.
( b ) *Summary judgment.* Either party to the hearing may ask the hearing officer to rule on a motion for summary judgment.
[72 FR 68725, Dec. 5, 2007]
# C_2006036EN.01002001.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/20

---

Action brought on 21 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-410/05)

(2006/C 36/40)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Zavvos and G. Braun, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/97/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/97/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 15 June 2003.

---

(1)  OJ No L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.641 Contract determinations. This subpart establishes the procedures for making and reviewing the following contract determinations: ( a ) A determination that an entity is not qualified to enter into a contract with CMS under Part C of title XVIII of the Act.
( b ) A determination not to authorize a renewal of a contract with an MA organization in accordance with § 422.506(b).
( c ) A determination to terminate a contract with an MA organization in accordance with § 422.510(a).
( d ) A determination that an entity is not qualified to offer a Specialized MA Plan for Special Needs Individuals as defined in §§ 422.2 and 422.4(a)(1)(iv).
[63 FR 35113, June 26, 1998, as amended at 77 FR 22168, Apr. 12, 2012; 80 FR 7962, Feb. 12, 2015]
#### § 35.2 Compliance with hospital rules.

All patients and visitors in stations and hospitals of the Service are expected to comply with the rules and instructions issued under the authority of the officer in charge.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 18, 2024

NO. 03-23-00319-CV

Karen Bass and Lynn Smith, in their capacity as Successor Co-Trustees on behalf of the 

Amended and Restated George E. Bogle and Nancy T. Bogle Joint Revocable Trust, dated 

March 2, 2021, Appellants

v.

George Michael Bogle and Katherine Leigh Bogle Leavitt, Appellees

APPEAL FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART --

OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on May 26, 2023. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in portions 

of the court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the probate court’s final judgment to the 

extent it declared that the purported trust amendment executed in October 2022 by George 

Michael Bogle on behalf of his parents was void and invalid and awarded fees and expenses to 

the court-appointed guardian ad litem and the receiver. The Court also affirms the final 

judgment to the extent that it declared that the provisions in the 2022 Trust Agreement and its 

amendments that changed the distribution of the trust assets on Nancy T. Bogle’s death were 

void and invalid. The Court reverses the remainder of the final judgment and remands the case 
to the probate court for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion. Each party shall 

bear their own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          58,904
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       5758
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,680
<PP&E>                                         100,824
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 981,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          842,716
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       380,146
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,830,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   981,815
<SALES>                                         54,670
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,670
<CGS>                                          160,266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  324,349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               375,475
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (644,564)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       6
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (644,564)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
#### The State, ex rel. Voight, Jr., *v.*Lueders, Probate Judge.

*Mandamus*— *Probate court to journalise decision*— Granting *application to set aside execution*— *Property seised by writ of attachment*— Issued *by common pleas court.*

(No. 16632

Decided June 3, 1920.)

In Mandamus.

*Mr. George S. Hawke*and *Mr. Henry L. Rocket,*for relator.

*Mr. Herman P. Goebel,*for respondent.

By the Court.

This is an original action in mandamus, wherein the relator, Lewis Voight, Jr., prays for a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding respondent to enter upon the journal of his court his decision upon an application filed to set aside a writ of execution issued from his court.

*257Acting upon the suggestion noted in the case of *State, ex rel. Voight, Jr.,*v. *Lueders, Probate Judge,*decided at the present term, *ante,*211, the relator on April 28, 1920, filed his application in the probate court to set aside the writ of execution issued on an alleged judgment in that court, which execution was then in the hands of the sheriff.

It appears further from the proceedings that on April 29, 1920, a hearing was had upon said application. Prior to that time, however, it also appears that an action had been filed against the relator in the court of common pleas of Hamilton county in cause No. 174,344, wherein attachment had been issued attaching the stock certificate in question, and that' the coroner of that county had seized the certificate of stock under a writ of attachment and had taken possession thereof from the sheriff who was holding the same under a writ of execution issued from the probate court. These facts being made to appear to the probate court, and that the property was no longer in the hands of the sheriff, that court decided that since the execution had spent its force no order or finding could lawfully be made by him which would give life, and effect to the execution, and that any action by the probate court would be futile and of no avail. No journal entry was made of this decision.

In this action we are not called upon to decide whether, as claimed by the relator, the order of attachment issued from the common pleas court was validly executed by seizure of the stock or should have been executed by proceedings in gar*258nishment under Section 11829, General Code. *(Locke*v. *Butler,*19 Ohio St., 587.) That feature of. the case remains to be disposed of in the common pleas court action.

Since the application of the relator to set aside the writ was properly presented to the probate court it was incumbent upon that court to act upon that application and enter its determination on the journal. The court speaks through its journal. A-peremptory writ will therefore be awarded to the relator commanding the respondent to enter upon his journal his decision upon the application of the relator to set aside the writ of execution.

*Writ allowed.*

Jones, Matthias, Johnson, Robinson and Merreix, JJ., concur.
July20th
, 2010
The Honorable Ray LaHood Secretary 

# AmericanSamoa**~**

# VisitorsBureau

United States Department ofTransportation 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 205900 Subject: Application ofAviation Services, Ltd. (dba Freedom Air) DOT-OST-2010-0153 Talofa Secretary LaHood, I am writing in my capacity as Executive Director of the American Samoa Visitors Bureau to offer my support for Aviation Services, Ltd., (dba Freedom Air) application to engage in charter air transportation of passengers to and from Guam. As the United States' most southern territory in the world, American Samoa is one of the last untouched paradises of the Pacific region whose tourism industry is still very small, but beginning to take firm measures to growthe industryon island. As we attempt to grow our tourism sector, theAmerican Samoa Visitors Bureau is keen to partnerwith travel industry members regionally and globally, and Freedom Air potentially as a partner can make a valuable contribution to our industry in thefuture. Having recently met with Freedom Air's General Manager, Joaquin L. Flores Jr., he outlined the company's intention to apply for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with your office to expand services from Guam toAsia. He has also indicated that charter services from Guam to American Samoa and otherSouth Pacific nations are also being considered forthefuture. For us, the potential for charter operations will make a viable contribution to our economy and industry, bringing in visitors who will contribute valuable foreign exchange earnings, and at the same timecreating employment for our people in theTerritory. With this overall goal in mind I hopeyour Department looks favorably upon this application and we look forward toworking with Freedom Air in thefuture. Fa'afetai tele lava, thankyou. Soifua

Executive Director

PO Box4240, Pago Pago, American Samoa96799 Ph: 1-684-6999805, Fax: 1-684-6999806, Email: infO®americansamoa.travel, Website: www.americansamoa.travel

•