alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON FORM 10-K PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 NOT FILED PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934

    Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form
10-K/A, the undersigned herby certify that this report on Form 10-K/A of Grant
Prideco, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this
report of Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Grant Prideco, Inc.


June 30, 2003                            /s/ Michael McShane
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:  Michael McShane
                                         Title: President and Chief
                                                Executive Officer

                                         /s/ Louis A. Raspino
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name:  Louis A. Raspino
                                         Title: Senior Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHARLES BUCCERONI : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 03-6371 

:

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al. :

CIVIL JUDGMENT

Before the Honorable Juan R. Sánchez, 

AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2006, in accordance with verdict of the jury,

judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants Joseph Sullivan, Thomas

Kelly and Carl LaTorre as to interrogatories two and five. Compensatory damages in the amount

of $100,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $500,000 are to be awarded to the plaintiff. 

Judgment is to be entered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff as to interrogatories

one and four. Jury was unable to reach a verdict as to interrogatory three.

ATTEST:

 /s/Nancy DeLisle 

Nancy DeLisle

Deputy Clerk

Civ 1 (8/80)

civjud.frm

Case 2:03-cv-06371-JS Document 94 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 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 Duke Capital LLC (Duke Capital) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven K. Young, Chief Financial Officer and Controller of Duke Capital, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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 Duke Capital.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    STEVEN K. YOUNG                                             
|Steven K. Young Chief
Financial Officer and Controller May 15, 2006
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PC Connection, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Patricia Gallup, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 07, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    Patricia Gallup                              
|                      |  |  |  | Patricia GallupPresident and Chief Executive Officer
No. 52147.

protests 80534-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Chong Kee Jan & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of kumquats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342). In accordance therewith the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 989 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 989

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 12, 2018.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 6237) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 for 
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States 
Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence 
Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The first 
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill, it 
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-80. That amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. 
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 16, 2011

t1213 

# Order

December 16, 2011

143883

AYED ABOONA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 143883 COA: 297584 Wayne CC: 09-008162-NF GREAT WEST CASU ALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a sti pulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
**Exhibit32.2**

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER SECTION 906 OFSARBANES- OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

I, Thomas A. Dolan,certify that:

1.   The AnnualReport as amended for the year ended June 30, 2006 on Form 10-KSB of QRS MusicTechnologies, Inc. (the “ Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

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

 Date: October 13, 2006
|        | /s/ Thomas A. Dolan      |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas A. Dolan          |   |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 6  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934   I, Robert J. Waters, certify that:  1.I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Enerplus Resources Fund;  2.Based on my
knowledge, this 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 report;  3.Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;  4.The issuers
other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:  (a)Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)Evaluated the
effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented
in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and  (c)Disclosed in this
report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The issuers
other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers
auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):  (a)All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and  (b)Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date: April 22, 2004
  /s/ Robert J. WatersRobert J. WatersSenior Vice President and
  Chief Financial Officer of EnerMark Inc.
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
# C_2016078EN.01002601.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/26

---

Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Gauff v OHIM — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)

(Case T-748/15)

(2016/C 078/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Molnar, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Gauff’ — Community trade mark No 6 192 521

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Case R 1350/2014-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to OHIM for further examination of the disputed matters that were, in error, not examined; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to OHIM for further examination of the disputed matters that were, in error, not examined;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 53, 56, 57 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 53, 56, 57 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Breach of the right to be heard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Breach of the right to be heard;

| — | Defective statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

Defective statement of reasons.

---
No. 55110.

#### Irving Ross, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 158655-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
From: Green, Gregory

Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 10:06 AM

To: Wood, Gil; Cole, David; Aldridge, Amanda

Cc: Edwards, Chebryll

Subject: Conversation with Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia 6 th District

Janet and I just had a short conversation with Congressman Goodlatte regarding the Wood Heater NSPS.

He expressed concerns with the timing of the rule, i.e., that it would be effective immediately and we

should give these small businesses the opportunity t o prepare to meet the standards. Secondly he was

concerned about the certification issue

– that stoves be able to attain certification by the effective date

and not lay off employees. He also pushed us for a one year sell through for all stoves.
**Exhibit 32.2**

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley act of 2002.
In connection with the Annual Report of Hartville Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, W. Russell Smith III, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated: April 22, 2005     /s/ W. Russell Smith III W. Russell Smith III,Chief Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 11.2
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following RegistrationStatements of Vivendi Universal S.A.:               **Registration****SEC Form** **Filing Date** **Number**S-8  08/11/2003   333-107837 S-8  06/06/2002   333-77270 S-8  06/04/2002   333-89744 S-8  06/04/2002   333-89754 S-8  05/06/2002   333-87622 S-8  01/31/2002   333-81830 S-8  10/26/2001   333-72270 S-8  08/29/2001   333-64754 S-8  01/04/2001   333-48966 S-8  12/29/2000   333-51654 S-8  12/11/2000   333-51654 S-8  12/11/2000   333-48966 S-8  10/05/2000   333-47440 F-3/A  06/03/2002   333-81578 F-3  01/29/2002   333-81578 
of our report dated March 28, 2002 with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of Vivendi Universal and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December31, 2001, included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year endedDecember 31, 2003. This report is a copy of a joint audit report previouslyissued by Barbier Frinault & Cie, a member of Andersen Worldwide and RSMSalustro Reydel. The report was not reissued by Barbier Frinault & Cie, amember of Andersen Worldwide, however RSM Salustro Reydel has agreed to allowthis report to be reproduced in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.
Paris, France
No. 67760.

#### Union Brokerage Co. *v.*United States,

protest 329365-K (Pembina).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of yellow cedar the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Border Brokerage Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 179, C.D. 1923), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2016038EN.01006701.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/67

---

Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head)

(Case T-681/15)

(2016/C 038/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société Elmar Wolf SA (Wissembourg, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a wolf’s head) — Community trade mark application No 4 971 511

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 1252/2015-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM and other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
No. 57602.

#### Dr. H. L. Levi *v.*United States,

petition 6819-R (Milwaukee).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It appeared from the record that the difference between the entered and appraised values was represented by a trade discount of 15 percent from the invoice value, which had been granted the petitioner by the exporter. Prior to entry, the petitioner took the matter up with the customs examiner who, at that time, believed the discount was deductible, and entry was made accordingly. Subsequently, the examiner determined that the discount was not allowable and returned a value without benefit of the discount. On the evidence presented, it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 52175.

protest 124035-K (New York).

#### Glenram Wine & Liquor Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casBs, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

BENEFICIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT

COMPANY D/B/A BENEFICIAL

MORTGAGE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, REPONDENT

v.

PAMELA A. VUKMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 399 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of April, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.