alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 NEW MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, INC. ON FORM
10-KSB  FOR  THE  PERIOD  ENDING  JUNE 30, 2005 AS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE  COMMISSION  ON THE DATE HEREOF (THE "REPORT"), I, MAHESH  JAYANARAYAN,
CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  BOARD OF NEW MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, INC. 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 THE SECURITIES ACT
     OF  1933,  AS  AMENDED;  AND

     (2)  THE  INFORMATION  CONTAINED  IN  THE  REPORT  FAIRLY  PRESENTS, IN ALL
     MATERIAL RESPECTS, THE FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS OF NEW
     MEDIUM  ENTERPRISES,  INC.



/S/  MAHESH  JAYANARAYAN,
CHIEF  EXECUTIVE  OFFICER
OCTOBER  28,  2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            W-H ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth T. White, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of
W-H Energy Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge,
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.

                                        /s/  Kenneth T. White, Jr.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:    Kenneth T. White, Jr.

Date: November 7, 2006

This certification is furnished solely to comply with the requirements of Rule
13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein and shall not be deemed
to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.


                                       26
Before the Second Division,

September 25, 1947

No. 51915.

#### H. A. Caesar & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 865101-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It appeared from the testimony that the merchandise in question is of the same dutiable character as the umbrella cloth covered by *Caesar & Co.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 34, C. D. 278), *id.*v. *id.*(6 Cust. Ct. 455, C. D. 515), and Abstract 50363. The protests were therefore sustained as to either of the claims made, according to the dates of entry or withdrawal from warehouse, but overruled in all other respects.
2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!! 2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

2!!

)!C

Anheuser-Busch

ShelterWorks

St Louis Downtown Airport

Occidental

Chemical

Upchurch

Ready Mix Concrete Plant

JetAviation St Louis Inc

Apex Oil Co

Alton &

Southern Railroad Co

Wood River Pipe Lines

Cerro Flow Products JointAmerican Bottoms &Sauget

Treatment Facility

Kinder Morgan Cahokia Terminal

Environmental

Management Corp

ST. LOUIS Post

Dispatch

NATIONAL

GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE

AGENCY-ST LOUIS

TRIGEN-ST. LOUIS

ENERGY CORP-ASHLEY

STREET STATION

Poly

One Corp

Schaeffer Mfg Resource Recovery

Group

Afton Chemical

Solutia Inc

Anheuser-Busch

US Paint Corp

SigmaAldrich MFG

Conoco Phillips Pipe Line Co

Superior Solvent &Chemical

HERTZ ST. LOUIS

ONE, LLC-LACLEDE

GAS BUILDING

Big River Zinc Corp

Veolia ES

Technical

Solutions

J D Streett

BulkTerminal

Center Ethanol

Ralston Foods

Exxon Mobil Oil Corp

ST LOUIS

Heliport

ARCH

FOSTAIRE

CLARION

23RD

STREET

EASTSAINTLOUISY

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,

Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Facilities Reporting HAPS

2011 NEI & TRI

1 mile

2 mile

3 mile
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00131-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G., a Child

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-01373

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED August 28, 2013.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
No. 60381.

protests 249301-K, etc. (Duluth).

#### F. E. Macartney *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ergoty screenings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Universal Laboratories*v. *United States*(35 Cust. Ct. 23, C. D. 1715), the claim for free entry was sustained as to the percentages of ergot content of the merchandise, as set forth in the schedule “A,” attached to and made part of the decision. The remaining merchandise was held dutiable, as assessed.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mercer Insurance Group, Inc. (the “Group”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew R. Speaker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Group, 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 the Group.











Date: May 10, 2010

/s/ Andrew R. SpeakerAndrew R. SpeakerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit No. 32.2
Form 10-KSB
Pegasus Wireless Corp.
File No. 000-32567



                            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 Annual Report of Pegasus  Wireless Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year and six months ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Stephen Durland, 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:

     (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.


Dated: March 29, 2006        By:  /s/Stephen Durland
                                ----------------------------
                                Stephen Durland
                                Chief Financial Officer



--------------------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 12.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Ian R. Lambert, Chief Executive Officer of Lucite International GroupHoldings Limited, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Lucite InternationalGroup Holdings Limited; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant, as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:      (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis annual report is being prepared;      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisannual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the periodcovered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and      (c) disclosed in this annual report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):      (a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summariseand report financial information; and      (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
**Date: April 1,2004**
/s/ Ian R. Lambert
Ian R. Lambert
# C_2017277EN.01001502.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland — Netherlands) — Federatie Nederlandse Vakvereniging and Others v Smallsteps BV

(Case C-126/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Articles 3 to 5 - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Exceptions - Insolvency proceedings - ‘Pre-pack’ - Survival of an undertaking))

(2017/C 277/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federatie Nederlandse Vakvereniging, Karin van den Burg-Vergeer, Lyoba Tanja Alida Kukupessy, Danielle Paase-Teeuwen, Astrid Johanna Geertruda Petronelle Schenk

Applicants:

Defendant: Smallsteps BV

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, and in particular Article 5(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of workers guaranteed by Articles 3 and 4 of that directive applies in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the transfer of an undertaking takes place following a declaration of insolvency and in the context of a ‘pre-pack’ where that ‘pre-pack’ is prepared before the declaration of insolvency and put into effect immediately after that declaration, and, in particular, a court-appointed prospective insolvency administrator investigates the possibilities for continuation of the activities of that undertaking by a third party and prepares for acts which must be carried out shortly after the insolvency to enable such continuation and, moreover, it is irrelevant in that regard that the ‘pre-pack’ is also aimed at maximising the proceeds of the transfer for all the creditors of the undertaking in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.

1

---
No. 59939.

#### California Mill Supply Corp. v. United States,

protests 23443-K and 42800-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent of the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
No. 53425.

protests 133691-K, 133692-K, and 133693-K (Indianapolis).

#### Eli Lilly and Company v. United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the' merchandise consists of ox gall the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
No. 66733.

#### Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 311717-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of I-IO equipment similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc., et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 137, C.A.D. 746), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows; The items *445marked “A” at the appropriate rate of duty, depending upon the date of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified, for manufactures in chief value of base metal, not specially provided for, at a value of $2 per unit, and the items marked “B” at 13% percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for other metal articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, on the basis of the appraised *per se*unit value, less $2, as claimed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SHARYN STAGI and WINIFRED LADD : CIVIL ACTION

Individually, and on behalf of :

all others similarly situated :

:

Plaintiffs, :

: NO. 03-CV-5702

v. :

:

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER :

CORPORATION (t/d/b/a AMTRAK) :

:

 Defendant. :

 

 ORDER

AND NOW, this ___12 ____ day of August 2009, it is ORDERED that th

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #77) is GRANTED.

s/Anita B. Brody

 

ANITA B. BRODY, J. 

Copies VIA ECF on _______ to: Copies MAILED on _______ to:

Case 2:03-cv-05702-AB Document 112 Filed 08/12/09 Page 1 of 1
Do Not Pay 

State Engagement

June 2021
Page 2 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Working Together

• State Program Approach

• Eligibility and Dual Enrollment Tools

• Onboarding and Project Paths

Contents 
Page 3 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Working Together

Payment 

Disbursement 

Offices

Oversight 

Offices

Program 

Offices

State Comptroller

Healthcare 

Authority

Office of Inspector 

General

Department 

of Human 

Services 

Payments

State Auditor

Developing a Reusable Solution

• Program Eligibility and Verification

• Dual Enrollment

– Across Multiple States

– Within a State

• Administrative Errors

– Duplication

Providing Value

• Assess state’s existing controls

– Death Verification

– Identification of Risky TINs

– Data Quality

• Identifies the risk of overpayments associated with

duplicate beneficiaries or providers

Stakeholder Needs

• DNP adapts to state customer’s specific needs

based on their customer type
Page 4 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Targeted outreach approach

– Medicaid

– CARES Act/ Pandemic Assistance

– Unemployment Insurance

– SNAP

DNP is approaching these efforts by

– Leveraging existing partners

– Targeting new partners based expected impact

State Program Approach
Page 5 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

What does it do?

– Identifies if your applicants/payees are listed on eligibility sources (death, 

debarred providers, registered providers, & delinquent debtors)

– Identifies the extent that data quality is impacting your ability to effectively screen 

payees

What will it tell me?

– Determines if payees meet/fail eligibility requirements 

– Tests how well current data quality & eligibility procedures are preventing 

improper payments

– Pinpoints potential opportunity areas to improve

Eligibility Verification Tool
Page 6 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

What will it do?

– Use techniques to identify and prioritize cases of dual or duplicate enrollment across states.

– Use standardization procedures to account for formatting differences across states’ systems.

What will it tell me?

– Provides prioritized list of duplicate enrollment cases

– Provides insight into relevant details necessary for adjudication such as likely state of current

residency & coverage dates



Dual Enrollment Tool
Page 7 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

All DNP services are FREE, however there is a time and resource 

commitment that is needed.

Associated Costs

• Time Commitment

– Overview and Collaboration discussions

– Complete governance/ approval processes

– query and transfer data

– portal usage

• Adjudicate results

• Feedback
Page 8 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Onboarding and Project Paths 

Impact and 

ROI

Overview Intake Governance

Data 

Transmission

Analytics 

Initiation

Deliverable and 

Feedback

Overview

Initial 

Questions 

Document

Legal Approval

Onboarding Portal Use and 

Set-Up Feedback

Analytics Portal
Page 9 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Questions and Contact Information 

Jon Ortiz

Team Lead, Outreach and Business Processes

202-874-9579

Jon.Ortiz@fiscal.treasury.gov

For more information, visit our website: 

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/dnp/states.html
Document

EXHIBIT 10.12





AMENDMENT TO THE 2014 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN


THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the TriState Capital Holdings, Inc. 2014 Omnibus Incentive Plan, is made and adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of TriState Capital Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), effective as of the Effective Date (as defined below).  All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan (as defined below).


WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted, and the Company’s stockholders have previously approved, the TriState Capital Holdings, Inc. 2014 Omnibus Incentive Plan (as amended from time to time, the “Plan”);


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Plan, the Board has the authority to amend the Plan, subject to certain limitations;


WHEREAS, the Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan as set forth herein; and


WHEREAS, this Amendment shall become effective upon the approval of this Amendment by the Company’s stockholders at the annual meeting of stockholders held on May 29, 2020 (the date of such approval, the “Effective Date”).


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the Effective Date:


1.Section 1.6.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to (i) increase the aggregate number of shares available for issuance under the Plan by 1,000,000 and (ii) increase the aggregate number of shares available for issuance as Incentive Stock Options by 1,000,000.


2.This Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated into and forms a part of the Plan.


3.Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.
Before the Second Division,

June 17, 1964

No. 68647.

protests 59/32900, 60/1234, and 60/6851 (New York).

#### Metasco, Inc. *v.*United States,

*379Opinion by

Da whence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritehard & Co. et al.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

May 27, 1963

No. 67757.

#### W. J. Marshall and Rex Sales Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/4353 and 60/4354 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 58374.

protest 130020-K (Philadelphia).

#### The Lansdowne Distillery *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that 97 eases, out of 5,000 cases of brandy imported, were manipulated in bonded warehouse at Philadelphia by repacking, resulting in 4,976 cases; that 4,976 cases were forwarded to Portland, Oreg., and upon information from the collector at that port, further allowance was made for 1.20 gallons; that duty was assessed on 12,000 gallons and internal revenue tax on 11,997 gallons; and that the actual number of gallons withdrawn from warehouse after manipulation was 11,941.20 gallons. Following *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Oust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.