alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32

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 of Trans World Entertainment Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending October 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Robert J. Higgins,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and John J. Sullivan,
Executive Vice President and 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 the best of our 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.

|                                       |                                                         
|-------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------
|                                       |                                                         
|/s/ Robert J. Higgins                  | /s/ John J. Sullivan                                    
|Chairman and Chief
  Executive Officer | Executive Vice President
  and
  Chief Financial Officer
|                                       |                                                         
|December 7, 2006                       | December 7, 2006                                        

36

---
FY2001 Designated Funds for Specific NCPD Projects and Activities

file:////acfnas/perm/netsite-docs/lps83521/2001/fy01earmark.html[6/21/2017 9:49:12 AM]

Planning FHWA > HEP > Planning > CORBOR

FY 2001 Designated Funds for Specific NCPD Projects

and Activities

NATIONAL CORRIDOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Within the funds available for the National Corridor Planning and Development Program, funds are to be available

for the following projects and activities:

Project Conference $ Amount

Anniston Evacuation corridor, Calhoun County, Alabama $3,000,000

Avalon Boulevard/405 Freeway interchange, Carson, California $875,000

Traffic calming, Boca Raton, Florida $500,000

City of North Ridgeville, Lorain County, Ohio grade crossing improvements $600,000

Coalfields expressway Virginia $4,000,000

Coalfields expressway, West Virginia $10,000,000

Downtown Fitchburg Route 12 extension, Massachusetts $2,000,000

Hatcher Pass (phase I), Alaska $2,000,000

I-25 corridor from Alameda to Logan, Colorado $4,000,000

I-29 Port of Entry, Union County, South Dakota $2,000,000

I-35 corridor expansion, Waco, Texas $1,325,000

I-5 South Medford interchange and Delta Park,Oregon $1,000,000

I-65 upgrade, Clark County, Indiana $1,350,000

I-66, Somerset to London, Kentucky $5,000,000

I-69 corridor, Louisiana $2,300,000

I-69 corridor, Texas $3,000,000

I-74 bridge, Moline, Illinois $5,600,000

Madison County, KY 21 and I-75, Kentucky $1,000,000

New Boston Road improvements, Mercer County, Illinois $3,000,000

Radio Road overpass, City of Sulphur Springs, Texas $1,350,000

Route 104, Virginia $1,000,000

South Shore industrial safety overpass, Indiana $4,750,000

Stevenson expressway, Illinois $3,800,000

US 19, Florida $10,000,000

US 25 improvements, Kentucky $2,000,000

US 321 and US 74, Gasden and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina $500,000

US 395 North Spokane corridor, Washington $1,000,000

US 43, Alabama $4,000,000

US 51 widening, Decatur, Illinois $1,350,000

US 95 (Milepost 522 to Canadian border), Idaho $1,900,000
FY2001 Designated Funds for Specific NCPD Projects and Activities

file:////acfnas/perm/netsite-docs/lps83521/2001/fy01earmark.html[6/21/2017 9:49:12 AM]

US Route 2, New Hampshire $1,500,000

US-61 (Avenue of the Saints), Missouri $4,000,000

WI 29 (Chippewa Falls bypass, Wisconsin) $3,000,000

To provide Feedback, Suggestions or Comments for this page contact Stefan Natzke at stefan.natzke@dot.gov or

202-366-5010.

FHWA Home | HEP Home | Feedback

United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration
OFFICE OF THEA-ITORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN 

Er. i"isrren KoDoncld 

County Attornay 

Sal trl county 

Tyler, Texas 

Dear Yr. MoDonnld: 

January 

190. C-103 

ity of 4) ?a Colleoaccept payment 0T 

nent taxes without 

ent of school and roe4 

res that wnre Aelinquent 

ars prior to the datr. 

it wne ffled. 

he following question 

llnquent contraot 

, does a County 

for oomnon nnd 

he authorIt to 

ant of delinquent taxes wlthout the 

01 and road taxes that are delinquent 

t.owSh Late the suit wn8 filed?" 

to ycur quejtlon you are respectfully adour oyinlon where a tar contract ie in prooess and tax suits are flled, a oolleotor may accept the papment of dtllnquent taxes without the payment of school and 

rosd taxes that are delinquent ten yews prior to the data 

the suit was riled. However, R tax collcator could not clre 

the tu payer s clear reaelpt, or a stateaent that all taxes 

had heon paid. 

. 
, 

Mr. Karren KoDonald, January 18, 1939, Page 2. 

The reoolpt would merely show the amount of taxes paid and the 

years ror whloh paid, and the school and road tax would at111 be 

due and unpaid, 

krtlole 7298, Revised Civil Statute $rovlder in part as 

to11ows : 

“. . . . . provided, that no suit shell be brought 

for the oolleotlon of delinquent taxes of a School Dietriot or Road Dletrlct unless instituted within ‘ten years 

Srom the time the same shall beoome delinquent.” 

It la our opinion that this provlelon i.n Article 

7298 la a ton year statute of limitation on oolleotlon of 

delinquent taxem due a.school distrlot or a road district. In 

order to take advantage of-the limitation period th4 tax paper 

would have to speolally plead and set up his right6 under this 

ton year statute. In the absence of such special plesdlng by 

the tax payer, the attorney brlnglng the tex suit, could take 

judgment iOr the sohool and road tat, delinquent ten years prior 

to the date the suit was filed even though the other taxes had 

been paid. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TZXAS 

COB:CFS 

AYFRGVED: 

ATTORNEY OEN-ERAL GF TEXAS 

$,J 

f’$
# C_2017018EN.01002601.xml

| 19.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/26

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 February 2016

in Case E-20/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

v

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2013/10/EU amending Directive 75/324/EEC on aerosol dispensers)

(2017/C 18/10)

In Case E-20/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU of 19 March 2013 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU of 19 March 2013 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU of 19 March 2013 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
```

Exhibit 99.2

                              CERTIFICATION OF 10QSB

I, Cathleen Shoenfeld of Eldorado Artesian Springs, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period
      ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

                                          /s/ Cathleen Shoenfeld
Dated: February 14, 2003
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                          EXHIBIT 10.41



                          HEALTHDYNE TECHNOLOGIES, INC

                                AMENDMENT NO. 2

                HEALTHDYNE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. STOCK OPTION PLAN


     This Amendment No. 2 to the Healthdyne Technologies, Inc. Stock Option

Plan ("Plan") amends the terms and provisions of the Plan as follows:

                                       I.

     Amend Section 6.3 by adding at the end thereof the following language:

           In the event the Committee determines to accelerate the exercise
      date of an Option upon a change of control event (as defined by the
      Committee) pursuant to this Section 6.3 or such accelerated vesting is
      required by the terms of an Option agreement, the Committee shall provide
      the Optionee at least 10 days notice prior to the change of control event
      and the Option shall become immediately exercisable on the date of such
      notice.

                                      II.

     This Amendment No. 2 shall be effective on the date of its adoption by the

Board of Directors of Healthdyne Technologies, Inc.
# C_2017313EN.01000301.xml

| 21.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/3

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2017/C 313/03)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 23 June 2017 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 80868 |
| Decision No | : | 109/17/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Six-month prolongation of the special tax system for shipping |
| Legal basis | : | The Parliamentary resolution on income and net wealth taxes, the Tax Act (LOV-1999-03-26-14) sections 8-10 to 8-20, and the Regulation to the Tax Act (FOR-1999-11-19-1158) sections 8-11, 8-13, 8-15, 8-16 and 8-20. |
| Type of measure | : | Scheme |
| Objective | : | Maritime transport |
| Form of aid | : | Favourable tax |
| Budget | : | NOK 100 million |
| Duration | : | 1.7.2017-31.12.2017 |
| Economic sectors | : | Maritime transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Skatt Øst |
| PO Box 1073 Valaskjold |
| NO-1705 Sarpsborg |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

23 June 2017

Case No

Case No

:

80868

Decision No

Decision No

:

109/17/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Six-month prolongation of the special tax system for shipping

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

The Parliamentary resolution on income and net wealth taxes, the Tax Act (LOV-1999-03-26-14) sections 8-10 to 8-20, and the Regulation to the Tax Act (FOR-1999-11-19-1158) sections 8-11, 8-13, 8-15, 8-16 and 8-20.

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Scheme

Objective

Objective

:

Maritime transport

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Favourable tax

Budget

Budget

:

NOK 100 million

Duration

Duration

:

1.7.2017-31.12.2017

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Maritime transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Skatt Øst

PO Box 1073 Valaskjold

NO-1705 Sarpsborg

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Ameriton Properties Incorporated

Appellate case number: 01-13-00811-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-03918

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing is denied.

Justice’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown

Date: December 9, 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 21-0005 

IN RE THE MOTION OF ZACHARY W. 

DERR FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR 

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

FILED 

SEP 21 2021 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Zachary W. Derr has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana 

pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions 

Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on 

Character and Fitness has certified that Derr has provided the necessary documentation and 

has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. 

Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Zachary W. Derr may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of 

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the Clerk 

of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. s-+ 

DATED this el day of September, 2021. 

Chief Justice 

09/21/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0005
Justices
#### MICHAEL SIRAVO, RESPONDENT, v. SIRIAN LAMP COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Submitted February 16, 1940

Decided April 25, 1940.

For the appellant, *Kristeller & Zucker (Lionel P. Kristeller) .*

For the respondent, *Gross & Gross (Isaac Gross*and *Bernard A. Green).*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

This is an appeal from an alternative writ of *mandamus*allowed by Mr. Justice Parker. The writ directs the Sirian Lamp Company and the Sirian Wire and Contact Company, its wholly owned subsidiary, to present their books and records to a certified public accountant selected by the court for examination from a period beginning January 1st, 1937, to the present.

The Sirian Lamp Company, a Delaware corporation, maintains its office in the city of Newark and keeps all its books and records there. The Sirian Wire and Contact Company, a wholly owned subsidiary, is actively engaged in the manufacturing business in that city, and all of its books and ree*434ords are kept at the office of the Sirian Lamp Company. The applicant for the writ owns a substantial amount of the stock of the Sirian Lamp Company.

In awarding the examination, the Supreme Court was not regulating the affairs of a foreign corporation, but was affording an opportunity to stockholders having a substantial interest in the Sirian Lamp Company, with the aid of an impartial accountant, to examine the books and records of the company and its wholly owned subsidiary. The common law, when facts appeared as they do in this case, recognized the right of a stockholder to inspect the books of a corporation, if the application was made in good faith and concerning a matter germane to the protection of existing rights. *Feick*v. *Hill Bread Co.,*91 *N. J. L.*486, 488. The books and records being within this state and not subject, so far as we know, to inspection at the command of any other court, may be examined by direction of the Supreme Court. In fact, without such remedy the aggrieved stockholder, acting in good faith, would be denied a remedy for no reason whatever.

The writ is not in reality directed against the Sirian Wire and Contact Company, but to the corporation owning all of its stock. The records of the subsidiary were to all intents and purposes, as appears in this ease, the books and records of the appellant. Hence, there was no process against a corporation not a party to the action.

The fact findings by the Supreme Court are not subject to review in this court, but it might nonetheless be said in passing that they find abundant support in the record.

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.

*For affirmance*—The Chief Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— None.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

This Schedule contains summary financial information taken from the balance
sheet as of September 30, 1997 (unaudited) and the statement of operations
for the three-month period ended September 30, 1997 (unaudited) and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1997.
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        SEPT-30-1997
<CASH>                                5,616,185
<SECURITIES>                            (0)
<RECEIVABLES>                         3,043,052
<ALLOWANCES>                             (0)
<INVENTORY>                               3,163
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      8,662,875
<PP&E>                                  753,608
<DEPRECIATION>                          728,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       15,076,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   998,271
<BONDS>                                  (0)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    (0)
<PREFERRED>                              (0)
<COMMON>                              8,950,103
<OTHER-SE>                            2,792,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         15,076,358
<SALES>                                 175,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        275,290
<CGS>                                    81,315
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            81,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        463,935
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         (0)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (0)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (131,678)
<INCOME-TAX>                            (63,338)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (0)
<DISCONTINUED>                           (0)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          (0)
<CHANGES>                                (0)
<NET-INCOME>                            (68,340)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (0)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2




				Exhibit 99(ii)

			    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
				 18 U.S.C. ss.1350
			     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
		    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Datascension Inc. (the "Company")
on  Form  10-QSB  for the quarter ended September 30, 2004  as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date  therein specified (the "Report")
"Report"),  I,  Jason F. Griffith, Chief  Financial   Officer  of  the  Company,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted  pursuant to  Section  906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of  Section 13(a)
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.


                                    /s/ Jason F. Griffith, CPA
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    JASON F. GRIFFITH, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 3, 2004
# C_2018368EN.01000801.xml

| 11.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/8

---

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

(2018/C 368/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 16 August 2018 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 82251 |
| Decision No | : | 072/18/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | The Coastal Route Bergen–Kirkenes 2021–2030 |
| Legal basis | : | Norwegian Professional Transport Act |
| Type of measure | : | Ad hoc |
| Objective | : | Service of general economic interest |
| Form of aid | : | Public compensation |
| Budget | : | NOK 7 880 million |
| Duration | : | 2021-2030 |
| Economic sectors | : | Maritime transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Ministry of Transport and Communications |
| Postboks 8010 Dep |
| N-0030 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

16 August 2018

Case No

:

82251

Decision No

:

072/18/COL

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

The Coastal Route Bergen–Kirkenes 2021–2030

Legal basis

:

Norwegian Professional Transport Act

Type of measure

:

Ad hoc

Objective

:

Service of general economic interest

Form of aid

:

Public compensation

Budget

:

NOK 7 880 million

Duration

:

2021-2030

Economic sectors

:

Maritime transport

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Ministry of Transport and Communications

Postboks 8010 Dep

N-0030 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---