alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Report of FullCircle Registry, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Norman L. Frohreich, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Norman L. Frohreich____________________ Norman L. Frohreich, Chief Executive Officer & Principal Accounting Officer September 12, 2008
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bear Island Paper Company LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Edward D. Sherrick, Vice President of Finance [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 result of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in this Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Edward D. SherrickEdward D. SherrickVice President of Finance (Chief Financial Officer)November 8, 2004




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



14
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 72 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 72 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 72 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 72 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 72 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 72 Filed 04/06/2005 Page 6 of 6
# C_2016118EN.01002101.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/21

---

Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission

(Case C-81/16 P)

(2016/C 118/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Grant the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the appeal and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission;

Spain

Commission

| — | Annul Commission Decision 2014/489/UE (1) of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10) (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision 2014/489/UE (1) of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/10) (ex NN 36/10, ex CP 163/09) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla-La Mancha);

1

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Error of law relating to the control of Member States regarding the definition and application of a service of general economic interest. As regards the first condition laid down in the judgment in Altmark, (2) the General Court refused to check whether or not the Commission had examined all the relevant factors in assessing the definition of a public service. Likewise, the General Court failed to check whether or not the Commission had examined all the relevant elements in order to assess whether the fourth condition laid down in the judgment in Altmark had been fulfilled. Accordingly, the General Court infringed the discretion allowing a Member State to organise its public service.

Error of law relating to the control of Member States regarding the definition and application of

2

Error of law relating to judicial control of the compatibility of State aid. In the first place, the General Court failed to check the accuracy of the facts on which the Commission based its analysis. Accordingly, the judgment fails to review the reliability, consistency and relevance of the data used by the Commission. Finally, the General Court failed to check the validity of the Commission’s conclusions.

Error of law relating to judicial control of the compatibility of State aid

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 217, p. 52.

1

(2)  EU:C:2003:415.

2

---
# C_2018161EN.01000901.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani — Italy) — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-494/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Contracts concluded with a public sector employer - Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness))

(2018/C 161/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Trapani

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Giuseppa Santoro

Applicant:

Defendants: Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, on the one hand, does not punish the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts by a public sector employer through the payment of compensation to the worker concerned for the lack of conversion of the fixed-term employment relationship into an employment relationship of indefinite duration, but, on the other hand, provides for the grant of compensation of between 2,5 and 12 times the last monthly salary of that worker together with the possibility for him to obtain full compensation for the harm by demonstrating, by way of presumption, the loss of opportunities to find employment or that, if a recruitment competition had been duly organised, he would have been successful, provided that such legislation is accompanied by an effective and dissuasive penalty mechanism, a matter which is for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following table lists our subsidiaries and their jurisdiction of
incorporation as of June 30, 2010:



|                             |  |                         |           | 
|---------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | --------- | 
|Subsidiary                   |  | Country ofIncorporation |          
|                             | 
|Fibesa S.A.                  |  |                         | Argentina | 
|Tarshop S.A.                 |  |                         | Argentina | 
|Emprendimiento Recoleta S.A. |  |                         | Argentina | 
|Shopping Neuquén S.A.        |  |                         | Argentina | 
|Panamerican Mall S.A.        |  |                         | Argentina | 
|Arcos del Gourmet S.A.       |  |                         | Argentina | 
|Conil S.A.                   |  |                         | Argentina | 
|Metroshop S.A.               |  |                         | Argentina |
----

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | I,      Scott D. Dorfman, Chief Executive Officer of Innotrac Corporation (the      “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:                |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| (1)    | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for three months ended March      31, 2009 (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:      May 15, 2009                             |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                 |   |
|   | /s/      Scott D. Dorfman                            |   |
|   | Scott      D. Dorfman                                |
|   | President,      Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |
|   | of      the Board (Principal ExecutiveOfficer)       |
In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Alloy Steel
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Gene Kostecki, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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:  January 9, 2004             /s/ Gene Kostecki
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Gene Kostecki
                                   Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
Exhibit 33.2



---

Exhibit 33.2

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

The Bank of New York (the
Asserting Party) is responsible for assessing compliance as of June 30, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title
17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR), except for criteria 229.1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), (2)(iii), (2)(vi)-(vii), (3)(i), (4)(i), and (4)(iii)-(xv) of the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded
are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exceptions identified above, the Applicable Servicing Criteria).
The transactions covered by this report include the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Asserting Party served as trustee that are backed by the same asset type backing the asset-backed securities transactions completed by the BA
Credit Card Trust (including the asset-backed securities transactions completed by the BA Credit Card Trust), that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 by issuers with a fiscal year end of June 30, 2006, and that were registered with
the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the Platform Transactions).

The Asserting Party
has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of June 30, 2006 and for
the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered
public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of June 30, 2006 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

The Bank of New York, as Master Trust Trustee and Indenture Trustee



|    |  |                                                   |  |  |  |       |  |          
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | ---------
|    |  |                                                   |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ Patrick J. Tadie                              |  |  |  | Date: |  | 9/20/2006
|    |  | Name: Patrick J. Tadie Title:   Managing Director |  |  |  |       |  |
# OAR Box 1415 Prepped byOllie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 23 ) IV-H- 4 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/15/20089:38:26

AM Sheet 23 of 130 p. 1P. 2 

### *./ " 

# \\j'rf-H

AM* Keit h Barnet t

01/30/200 3 04:5 0 P M To : Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.go v cc : Sall yShaver/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Subject : Reinforce d Plasti cComposite s NESHA P Dea rBryon : W e hav e mad e a decisio n i n th e larg e part s issu e fo rth e Reinforce d Plasti cComposite s NESHAP . W e hav e decide d t o remov e th e captur e an d contro l requirement s fo rlarg e part s i n ope n moldin g an d pultrusio n operations . Ou rdefinitio n o flarg e part s wil l b e part s wit h a volum e o f40 0 cubi cfeet , o ran y dimensio n tha texceed s 5 0 feet . Th e America n Composite s Manufacturer s Associatio n wante d a definitio n o f1 2 fee ti n an ydimension . Thi s woul d hav e exclude d part s wher e captur e an d contro l i s alread ydemonstrated , s o w e coul d notus e thei rdefinition . Thi s chang e shoul d addres s OMB' s fina l concer n o n thi s rule . Therefore , becaus e thi s rul e ha s bee n determine d byOM B t o b e nonsignificant , w e ar e assumin g tha tOM B wil l no twan tt o revie wth e fina l rule . Woul d yo u pleas e confir m this . Pleas e cal l m e at919-541-560 5 i fyo u hav e an yquestions . Keit h W . Barnet t US/EP AOAQPS , ESD/MIC G C504-0 5 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 919-541-560 5 barnett.keith@epa.go v 7 • a ': 1 EP AAI R DO.' ; <
1

 We note that, pursuant to OCGA § 44-7-56, appeals from dispossessory

judgments must be filed within seven days, rather than the usual 30 days. This

shortened deadline did not apply here, because the dispossessory claim was resolved

earlier in the proceedings. See America Net, Inc. v. U. S. Cover, Inc., 243 Ga. App

204 (1) (532 SE2d 756) (2000). 

Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14D0475. ALLISON ZAREM v. SOUTHCOAST PROPERTIES, LLC.

Allison Zarem has filed an application for discretionary appeal from a state

court decision. The parties’ litigation began as a dispossessory proceeding in

magistrate court, and the case was transferred to state court when Zarem raised

counterclaims that exceeded the magistrate court’s jurisdictional limit. Under these

circumstances, the state court’s judgment is subject to direct appeal.

Where litigation begins in magistrate court and reaches the state court by

means of a de novo appeal, a party must file an application for discretionary appeal

to obtain appellate review before this Court. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11). But this

provision applies, by its terms, only where the state court exercises de novo review

of the magistrate court’s decision. Here, the case was transferred from magistrate

court to state court, so OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11) does not apply.

We will grant an otherwise timely application for discretionary appeal if the

lower court’s order is subject to direct appeal.1 See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly,

this application is hereby GRANTED, and Zarem shall have ten days from the date

of this order to file a notice of appeal with the trial court. If she has already filed a

notice of appeal in the trial court, she need not file a second notice. The clerk of the

trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to

August 27, 2014
the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/27/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LARRY CHRISTIANSON and

DARLENE CHRISTIANSON

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4287

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04287-JK Document 6 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
# C_2016335EN.01003901.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/39

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 4 July 2016 — Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP) and Others v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

(Case C-365/16)

(2016/C 335/53)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP), Axa, Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin, Danone, ENGIE, formerly GDF Suez, Eutelsat Communications, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SA, Orange SA, Sanofi SA, Suez Environnement Company, Technip, Total SA, Vivendi, Eurazeo, Safran, Scor SE, Unibail-Rodamco SE, Zodiac Aerospace

Applicants:

Defendant: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 4 of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011, (1) and in particular paragraph 1(a) thereof, preclude a levy such as that provided for in Article 235ter ZCA of the General Tax Code, which is payable on the distribution of profits by parent companies that are liable to corporation tax in France and is assessed on the basis of the sums distributed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 4 of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011, (1) and in particular paragraph 1(a) thereof, preclude a levy such as that provided for in Article 235ter ZCA of the General Tax Code, which is payable on the distribution of profits by parent companies that are liable to corporation tax in France and is assessed on the basis of the sums distributed?

1

ter

| 2. | In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, is a levy such as that provided for in Article 235ter ZCA of the General Tax Code to be regarded as a ‘withholding tax’ from which, pursuant to Article 5 of the directive, profits distributed by a subsidiary must be exempt? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, is a levy such as that provided for in Article 235ter ZCA of the General Tax Code to be regarded as a ‘withholding tax’ from which, pursuant to Article 5 of the directive, profits distributed by a subsidiary must be exempt?

ter

---

(1)  Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 2011 L 345, p. 8).

1

---
Attachment A

 :

02-2635 SHIRK :

02-2735 WATSON :

02-2736 HOOD :

02-2737 HART :

02-2738 JOHNSON :

02-2681 SHIRK :

02-2845 KINIUK :

02-3166 HRYCYK :

02-3168 GREEN :

02-3169 SAKEWICZ :

02-3170 HENDRICKS :

02-3171 PALMER :

02-3172 BERRY :

02-3175 SOLOMON :

02-3176 ROMANOWSKI :

02-3177 O’DONNELL :

02-3448 HARTMANN :

02-3449 ROCKS :

02-3450 REED :

02-3451 GAMBLER :

02-3452 MACAULEY :

02-3630 ALIBERT :

02-3631 VISCO :

02-3632 DANCSECS :

02-3847 HAMMOND :

02-3848 POTTER :

02-4095 SMITH :

02-4096 SEARFOSS :

02-4097 GEARINGER :

02-4101 FRYE :

02-4338 ZIMMERMAN :

02-4339 MEYER :

Case 2:02-cv-04338-JP Document 2-2 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04338-JP Document 2-2 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 2 of 2