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

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thinkpath, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kelly Hankinson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

3)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

4)       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.



     August 23, 2004                           By: /s/ Kelly Hankinson
                                               Name: Kelly Hankinson
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012006EN.01002703.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/27

---

Action brought on 26 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-114/11)

2012/C 6/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision to regard certain financial assistance from a Member State to students in higher education as an allowance of the same nature as family allowances and to deduct this financial assistance from the education allowance granted to the applicant, and annulment of the decision to recover amounts unduly received;

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the two decisions that are implicit in the salary statement for March 2011 and adversely affect the applicant, namely (i) the decision to deduct the amount of financial assistance paid by the Centre de Documentation et d’Information sur l’Enseignement Supérieur de Luxembourg from the education allowance received by the applicant and (ii) the decision to recover amounts unduly received concerning the amount of education allowances received between October 2010 and February 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the two decisions that are implicit in the salary statement for March 2011 and adversely affect the applicant, namely (i) the decision to deduct the amount of financial assistance paid by the Centre de Documentation et d’Information sur l’Enseignement Supérieur de Luxembourg from the education allowance received by the applicant and (ii) the decision to recover amounts unduly received concerning the amount of education allowances received between October 2010 and February 2011;

| — | Order the Parliament to pay the resulting arrears of remuneration together with corresponding default interest, calculated from the date those arrears were due, at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Parliament to pay the resulting arrears of remuneration together with corresponding default interest, calculated from the date those arrears were due, at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points;

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

—

Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIANNA JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-13749

v.

Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

UNITED CAR COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of

Default Judgment issued on today's date, it is ordered and adjudged that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Entry of Default Judgment is GRANTED, the attached Retail Installment Contract and Security

Interest is RESCINDED, and Plaintiff is AWARDED damages, attorney’s fees and costs in the

total amount of $7,608.50.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 18, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or

party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July 18, 2016.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

2:14-cv-13749-PDB-MKM Doc # 30 Filed 07/18/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 175
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending October 15, 2005

|Filer               | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|BUTLER BANCORP, MHC | * 3A1* 3A3    | Application by Butler Bancorp, MHC and Butler Bancorp, Inc., both of Lowell, Massachusetts, to become a mutual bank holding company and a stock bank holding company, respectively, by acquiring Butler Bank, Lowell, Massachusetts, pursuant to section 3(a)(1) and section 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:10/14/2005
|Newspaper:          | Not available
|Federal Register:   | 10/14/2005   
|SALEM FIVE BANCORP  | * 3A1* 3A3    | Section 3(a)(1) and 3(a)(3) application by Salem Five Bancorp, Salem, Massachusetts to become a mutual bank holding company through the acquisition of Salem Five Cents Savings Bank, Salem, Massachusetts, and immediately thereafter to acquire Heritage Co-operative Bank, Salem, Massachusetts.                                       | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:11/04/2005
|Newspaper:          | Not available
|Federal Register:   | 11/04/2005   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
# C_2012399EN.01002201.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/22

---

Order of the General Court of 23 October 2012 — Chivas v OHIM — Glencairn Scotch Whisky (LIVE WITH CHIVALRY)

(Case T-181/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Opposition withdrawn - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 399/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd (Paisley, Renfrewshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Carboni, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd (Glasgow, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Lumsdaine, lawyer)

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Frist Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2011 (Case R-1263/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd and Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener are each ordered to bear their own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener are each ordered to bear their own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

1

---
§ 172.040 Certificate of loading. ( a ) Before it sails, each vessel that loads grain in bulk, except vessels engaged solely on voyages on the Great Lakes, rivers, or lakes, bays, and sounds, must have a certificate of loading issued by an organization recognized by the Commandant for that purpose. The certificate of loading may be accepted as prima facie evidence of compliance with the regulations in this subpart.
( b ) The Commandant recognizes the National Cargo Bureau, Inc., 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 903, New York, NY 10038, for the purpose of issuing certificates of loading.
[CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51218, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended by USCG-2007-29018, 72 FR 53968, Sept. 21, 2007; USCG-2021-0348, 87 FR 3225, Jan. 21, 2022]
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Declan A. French, Chief Executive Officer of Thinkpath Inc., certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thinkpath Inc.;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
         untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
         necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
         under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
         the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
         information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
         material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
         cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
         this quarterly report;

4.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
         establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
         defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
         we have:

                  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
         that material information relating to the registrant, including its
         consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
         entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
         is being prepared;

                  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
         controls and procedures as of a date within 45 days prior to the filing
         date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
         the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
         our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
         on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the
         audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

                  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
         internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability
         to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

                  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
         management or other employees who have a significant role in the
         registrant's internal controls.


Date: May 20, 2005
                                                   /S/ DECLAN FRENCH
                                                   ------------------
                                                   Declan A. French
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
# C_2018152EN.01002401.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2018 — Alouminion tis Ellados v Commission

(Case T-542/11 RENV) (1)

1

((State aid - Electricity - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Preferential electricity tariff granted by a contract entered into with the incumbent supplier - Termination of the contract by the incumbent supplier - Judicial suspension, by way of interim measures, of the effects of termination of the contract - Annulment of the Commission’s decision by the General Court - Judgment of the General Court set aside by the Court of Justice - Referral of the case back to the General Court - Scope of the action after being referred back - Classification of the order granting interim measures as constituting new aid - Competence of the Commission - Effective judicial protection - Classification of the preferential tariff as State aid - Advantage - Legitimate expectations - Rights of defence of the recipient - Obligation to recover - Obligation to state reasons))

(2018/C 152/28)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, formerly Alouminion AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: G. Dellis, N. Korogiannakis, E. Chrysafis, D. Diakopoulos and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, C. Synodinos, A. Oikonomou and H. Tagaras, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2012/339/EU of 13 July 2011 on State aid SA.26117 — C 2/2010 (ex NN 62/2009) implemented by Greece in favour of Aluminium of Greece SA (OJ 2012 L 166, p. 83).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI).

---

(1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Secure Blue, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, James Leslie Pilkington, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

| | By /s/ James Leslie Pilkington
James Leslie Pilkington
Chief Executive Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 15, 2003
#### McCune *v.*Rogers.

If a defendant, arrested on mesne process and carried before two justices on his application to be discharged, before any decision on the question of his discharge, withdraw his application, and, after commitment, give bail, the proceeding before the two justices will not prevent the discharge of his bail on motion made at the return term of the writ

The defendant was arrested on mesne process, and carried before two justices on his application to be discharged. The facts which appeared on the proceedings before the two justices are stated in the case of *Rogers*v. Stevens, reported in 45 N. H. 478, and are to be made part of this case. Since the hearing on that application, and before the return day of the writ, the defendant procured bail and was discharged from arrest. At the return term of the writ he moved that his bail be discharged and offered to submit to such examination as the court should order.

*Morrison, Stanley & Ciarle,*for plaintiff.

*Smith <& Topliff,*for defendant.

Perley, C. J.

The two justices, before whom the defendant’s application for his discharge from arrest was heard, permitted him to withdraw the application before any decision was made on.the question of his right to be discharged, and no decision or judgment was given in that proceeding. The case in this respect would seem to stand on the same footing as a nonsuit with the permission of thfe court in a suit at law.

In case of an arrest on mesne process by virtue of an affidavit endorsed on the writ, the statute provides, that, " at the return term of such, writ, the defendant may move the court to be discharged, or that his bail or sureties may be discharged, and the court, upon satisfactory evidence that the defendant does not conceal his estate, and does not intend to leave the State, may order such discharge.” Nothing done in this case on the application to the justices will prevent an application to the court for the discharge of the defendant’s bail, and the court should have entertained the motion. What would have been the effect of a decision by the two justices refusing his discharge need not now be considered.
No. 6277.

#### John Stone *v.*The State.

Theft.—Evidence,—See the opinion for the substance of evidence *held*insufficient to support a conviction for theft of hogs, because it proves-neither the venue of the offense nor the alleged ownership of the property.

Appeal from the District Court of Llano. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. Moursund.

This conviction was for theft of hogs of value less than twenty dollars. The penalty assessed by the verdict was a fine of sixty-nine dollars and sixteen cents, and confinement in the county jail for nine days.

The opinion sufficiently discloses the case.

No brief for the appellant.

*W. L.*Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

This conviction is for the theft of three-hogs alleged to be the property of one Barber. As presented to us in the statement of facts, the evidence does not sustain the conviction. There is no sufficient proof of the venue of the offense. Barber testified that he lived in Llano county, and owned a stock of hogs; that he missed some of his hogs from their range; but he did not state where that range was, whether in Llano or some other county. No witnesses testified *577that the hogs were taken in Llano county, nor was it proved circumstantially that they were taken in that county.

Opinion delivered May 11, 1889.

Three hogs were found in defendant’s possession, which one witness testified bore the ear mark of Barber, and had flesh marks similar to hogs which Barber had missed from his hog range. There is no other evidence that Barber owned the hogs found in defendant’s possession. In rebuttal, defendant proved that the three hogs found in his possession were in his own mark, and were his hogs; that his mark was almost identical with Barber’s, and that other persons in the county used the same mark that Barber used.

We are of the opinion that the allegation of ownership is not sustained by the evidence. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and*remanded„
# C_2012355EN.01003801.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/38

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2012 — Skyhawke Technologies v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYCADDIE)

(Case T-484/11) (1)

1

2012/C 355/80

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.

1

---