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

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NationalEquipment Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Milligan, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge: 

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

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

 
| /s/ MICHAEL D. MILLIGAN |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| Michael D. Milligan     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| April 8, 2004           |

 

----
|  | **Quick        Facts**Quick look at PDP operations
**Standard        Operating Procedures**Current SOPs        for PDP activities
**What        is PDP?**Introduction to the program
**Project        Overview**List of commodities        and pesticides tested
**Program        Status**Latest        developments in PDP
**Jan        2000 Progress Report**Our most recent        program update
**Download        Data / Reports**1992 - 1998        data and summary reports
 **Contact        Information**Contact points        for program information. |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2017144EN.01001701.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/17

---

Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15: Monster Energy Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-678/16 P)

(2017/C 144/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the General Court of 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the General Court of 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15

| — | Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R1028/2014-5 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R1028/2014-5

| — | Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition 2 178567 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition 2 178567

| — | Reject the opposed Mark for all goods in classes 29, 30 and 33 |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject the opposed Mark for all goods in classes 29, 30 and 33

| — | Order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and pay those of the appellant |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and pay those of the appellant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court incorrectly applied Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR (1) in its approach to the assessment of, and weight to be attached to, the dominant and/or distinctive elements of a composite mark. If the correct approach had been taken by the General Court it would have led to a finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the earlier mark.

1

The General Court incorrectly applied Article 8(5) EUTMR in its approach to the assessment of, and weight to be attached to, the dominant and/or distinctive elements of a composite mark.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

1

OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1

---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MICHAEL E. LEE,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-1401

LT Case No. 2018-CF-933

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 14, 2022 

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Lake County, 

Mark J. Hill, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and 

Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. See Santiago-Gonzalez v. State, 301 So. 3d 157 

(Fla. 2020). 

COHEN, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:04-cv-20672-HB Document 2 Filed 05/09/04 Page 13 of 13
(Reap. Dec. 10946)

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

Entry No. 720310-1/8.

(Decided April 8, 1965)

*Sharretts, Paley & darter*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise the subject of this appeal for reappraisement is described as Magneton Tape PEO 505, which is composed of a Mylar base and an iron oxide coating wound on reels with ring covers and that said *613merchandise is not on the Final List of items (T.D. 54521) from which the action of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 is withheld.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that such or similar merchandise was not freely sold or offered for sale for exportation to the United States at or about the time of exportation of the merchandise undergoing ap-praisement and that the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing appraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold, or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal market of the United States for domestic consumption, packed ready for delivery, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade with allowances made for the addition for profit and general expenses usually made in connection with sales in such market of imported merchandise at the same class or kind as the merchandise undergoing appraisement and with allowances for the usual costs of transportation and insurance and other usual expenses incurred with respect to such or similar merchandise from the place of shipment to the place of delivery (not including the addition for profit and general expenses) and with allowances made for the ordinary customs duties payable on such or similar merchandise by reason of its importation was $9.25 per roll net packed, including the cost of the reels and rings.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that said appeal be submitted on this stipulation being limited to the merchandise described as Magneton Tape PEC 505.

Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, I find and bold that United States value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943 (T.D. 54165), is the proper basis for determining value of the merchandise described as Magneton Tape PEC 505 on one of the invoices, covered by the entry of this appeal for reappraisement, and that such value is $9.25 per roll, net, packed, including reels and rings.

As to all other merchandise, this appeal for reappraisement is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J AC OB B OWMAN, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. K E V I N M I L Y A R D , W a r de n f orS t e r l i ng C o rr. F aci l i ty, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 35255 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 7 4 3 - R AJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R i c ha r d A . J one s , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry1, 2010

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , W . F L E T C H E R an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e t i t i one r - A ppe l l a ntJ a c ob B ow m a n appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on d e n y i n g h i s h ab e a s p e t i t i o n . W e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED FEB 12 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T he st atut e of l i m i t at i on s began t o run on F ebruary5, 20 01 , as soon as B ow m an’ s c on vi ct i on becam e f i nal on di re ctappeal . B ow m an’ s s t at e c ou rt P e r s ona l R e s tr a i ntP e t i t i on w a s notf i l e d f orm or e tha n ay e a ra f

t e rtha tda t e . T he W a s h in g to n S u p r e m e C o u rt’s d e c is io n , I n r e B ow m an , 17 2 P . 3d 68 1 (W as h. 20 07 ), w as no ta “ fa ct ” w i thi n the m eani ng of 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d)(1)(D ). N ei ther R edd v. Mc G r a th , 34 3 F . 3d 10 77 , 10 81 -82 (9th C i r. 20 03 ), no r Sh e lb yv . B a r tle tt , 391 F . 3d 1061, 1062 ( 9th C i r . 2004) , s upport s B ow m a n’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe W a s hi ngt on S u p re m e C o u rt’s d ec isio n se rv ed as th e f ac tu al p re d icate in h is ca se . B o w m an ’s pet i t i on w as no tt i m el y f i l ed un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(d)(1). B o w m a n h a s n o t m e t h is b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t e q u itab le to llin g is approp ri at e i n thi s c as e. H e has no tdem on stra t ed thatany e xtra ordi nary c ir c u m s ta n c e s b e y o n dh is c o n tr o l p r e v e n te dh im f r o m f ilin g atim e lyp e titio n . See P a c e v . Di Gu g l i e lmo , 54 4 U . S . 40 8, 41 8 (20 05 ); H arris v . Carter , 515 F . 3d 1051, 10 55 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). AF F I R ME D.
To: File

From: Antonio Bouza

Date: November 1, 2006

Subject: Edison Electric Institute and Energy Efficiency Stakeholders Meeting

On November 1, 2006, the Department of Energy (DOE) had an informal meeting in the Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy Assistant Secretary's conference room with representatives

from the Edison Electric Institute, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and

the Natural Resources Defense Council. The meeting started at 10:45 AM and ended at 11:30

AM. DOE is in the process of determining energy conservations standards for Distribution

Transformers. The group representing DOE included Alexander A. Karsner, Warren Belmar,

Lawrence Oliver, David Rodgers, Ronald Lewis and Antonio Bouza. The Edison Electric

Institute was represented by Mike McGrath, Rick Tempchin and Steve Rosenstock. The

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy was represented by Steve Nadel. The

Natural Resources Defense Council was represented by Kit Kennedy.

Edison Electric Institute and the other attending energy efficiency stakeholders told DOE that

they were working on developing a consensus standard level for distribution transformers. They

had a few questions related to the distribution transformer rulemaking and energy conservation

rulemakings in general. DOE informed them that they should submit their questions about the

distribution transformer rulemaking directly to the Distribution Transformer docket, following

the usual procedures.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 149

To: 

From: 

Date: 

Subject: 

File 

Antonio Bouza 

November 1, 2006 

Edison Electric Institute and Energy Efficiency Stakeholders Meeting 

#149 

On November 1,2006, the Department of Energy (DOE) had an informal meeting in the Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy Assistant Secretary's conference room with representatives 

from the Edison Electric Institute, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and 

the Natural Resources Defense Council. The meeting started at 10:45 AM and ended at 11 :30 

AM. DOE is in the process of determining energy conservations standards for Distribution 

Transformers. The group representing DOE included Alexander A. Karsner, Warren Belmar, 

Lawrence Oliver, David Rodgers, Ronald Lewis and Antonio Bouza. The Edison Electric 

Institute was represented by Mike McGrath, Rick Tempchin and Steve Rosenstock. The 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy was represented by Steve Nadel. The 

Natural Resources Defense Council was represented by Kit Kennedy. 

Edison Electric Institute and the other attending energy efficiency stakeholders told DOE that 

they were working on developing a consensus standard level for distribution transformers. They 

had a few questions related to the distribution transformer rulemaking and energy conservation 

rulemakings in general. DOE informed them that they should submit their questions about the 

distribution transformer rulemaking directly to the Distribution Transformer docket, following 

the usual procedures.
----

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of and for the periods presented in the Report. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/  | Lynda J. Nahra                        |
|--------|-----------|---------------------------------------|
|   |      | Lynda J. Nahra                        |
|   |      | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |      |                                  |
|   |      |                                  |
|   | /s/  | Charles G. Baltuskonis                |
|   |      | Charles G. Baltuskonis                |
|   |      | Executive Vice President and          |
|   |      | Chief Financial Officer               |

----
PRD Label Data Report: Food/Feed & Non-Food/Non-Feed Uses Considered in Registration Review Work Planning

Clodinafop-propargyl (125203)

Note: This is an aggregate report of registered uses for this chemical. Label data for chemicals with more than one pesticide product are presented in aggregate form (i.e. each line of data may be a combination of data from one or more pesticide).

Fo

o

d (F) /

N

on-fo

o

d

(N)

Use Site Formulation Desc

A. I. Max App 

Rate/App

Max # Apps / 

CC

A. I. Max 

App 

Rate/CC

Max # Apps 

/ Year

A. I. Max App 

Rate/Year

Minimum 

Retreatment 

Interval

Minimum 

Reentry

Interval PGI / PHI / PSI Allow Geo Restrictions

DisAllow Geo 

Restrictions Limitations

F WHEAT EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE .0632 lb / a 1 NS NS NS NS 12 hr G01(30) || G83(30) || H11(60) No Restrictions No Restrictions C20 || C46 || CAU || CDC || CMP(10) || CPE || CRF(.5) || CRO || CWH || CWL

F WHEAT EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE NDC 1 NS NS NS NS 12 hr G01(30) || G83(30) || H11(60) No Restrictions No Restrictions C20 || C46 || CAU || CDC || CMP(10) || CPE || CRF(.5) || CRO || CWH || CWL

Product is rainfast __ hours after application.

Endangered species restriction.

C (RO) Please refer to the label for rotational crop restrictions.

C (WH) Do not contaminate water by cleaning of equipment or disposal of equipment wash waters.

C (MP) Do not apply aerially when wind speed is greater than __ mph.

C (PE)

PPE (Protective Personal Equipment) language is found on the label. Please see issues report to read 

specific instructions.

C (RF)

Each row of this report is determined by the unique combination of the food/nonfood indicator, use site, formulation, and maximum application 

rate per application (key columns). The remaining, non-key columns of the report display either worse case or aggregate data from the label 

information that defines the unique data row. Note that each non-key column does not necessarily relate to any other non-key column with in 

the same row.

G (83) __ day(s) prefeeding interval.

H (11) __ day(s) preharvest interval (grain).

Current As Of Date : 6/1/2012

NDC - No Dosage Conversion ; NS - Not Specified

Limitation Code Limitation Description

C (20)

C (WL) Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal.

G (01) __ day(s) pregrazing interval.

Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the 

mean high water mark.

C (46) Do not apply through any type of irrigation system.

C (AU)

C (DC) Do not apply when drift is likely to occur.

Page 1 of 1
# C_2017277EN.01002001.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/20

---

Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Laboratoire de la mer against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-109/16: Laboratoire de la mer v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-662/16 P)

(2017/C 277/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Laboratoire de la mer (represented by: J. Blanchard, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 20 June 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
EXHIBIT
23





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM









EXHIBIT
23 –





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 for the Company's 1996 Stock Option Plan and 1996 Recognition and
Retention Plan (Registration No. 333-83198) of our report dated March 31, 2010
relating to the consolidated financial statements of First Federal of Northern
Michigan Bancorp, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 which appear in this Form 10-K of
First Federal of Northern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2009.





Plante
& Moran, PLLC





Auburn
Hills, Michigan


March 31,
2010
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Jeffrey J. Bairstow, Chief Financial Officer of Vitria Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, as follows:



The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the
Periodic Report.



IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 13th day of August, 2003.



By:

/s/ JEFFREY J. BAIRSTOWJEFFREY J. BAIRSTOWCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




A signed
original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), has been provided to Vitria Technology,
Inc. and will be retained by Vitria Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Vitria Technology, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.