alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1









CERTIFICATION




OF




CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER




AND




CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER




PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









I, Eliron
Yaron, Chief Executive officer (and Principal Financial Accounting Officer) of
Shelron Group Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Shelron Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Shelron Group, Inc. and its subsidiary.




Pursuant to the rules and regulations
of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this certification is being furnished
and is not deemed filed.


Date:
      March 31, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Eliron
      YaronEliron
      YaronChief
      Executive Officer
                And
      Principal Financial Accounting Officer
# C_2021462EN.01003501.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Severstal v Commission

(Case T-753/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in China and Russia - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Use of facts available - Article 2(3), (4), (9), (10) and (12) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(3), (4), (9), (10) and (12) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Calculation of the normal value, the export price and the dumping margin - Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Determination of the existence of injury - Article 3(7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(7) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Causal link - Article 2(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Injury elimination - Rights of the defence - Principle of good administration - Proportionality - Manifest errors of assessment)

(2021/C 462/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PAO Severstal (Cherepovets, Russia) (represented by: D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor, N. Tuominen and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, K. Blanck and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL, (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and S. Seeuws, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1328 of 29 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation (OJ 2016 L 210, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PAO Severstal to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PAO Severstal to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Eurofer, European Steel Association, ASBL, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of United Defense
Industries, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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




|                        |  |                                                                            
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 7, 2003 |  | /s/ Francis RabornFrancis Raborn
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing.
# C_2016419EN.01003102.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture — Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte (Croatia) lodged on 30 August 2016 — Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo v Air Serbia A.D. Beograd, and Dane Kondič, direktor Air Serbia A.D. Beograd

(Case C-476/16)

(2016/C 419/41)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Referring court

Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture — Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo

Applicant:

Defendant: Air Serbia A.D. Beograd, and Dane Kondič, direktor Air Serbia A.D. Beograd

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the practice of an airline of a signatory to the Multilateral Agreement on the Establishment of a European common aviation area (ECAA) which consists in providing commercial air transportation services departing from one of the Member States of the European Union, via its country of origin as a transfer point where passengers and their luggage are transhipped to another aircraft belonging to the same company, and travelling to a Member State of the European Union or a third country on the basis of an autonomous transport ticket which indicates two different flight numbers consistent with the interpretation of EU law in general and with the interpretation of Article 3(1)(a)(i) of Protocol VI included in Annex V of the ECAA in particular?

---
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1430 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to reauthorize the 

Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 26, 2017 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. CARPER, Mr. WARNER, Mr. COONS, Mr. KAINE, 

and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to 

reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 

Watertrails Network. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Gate5 ways and Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act 

8 of 1998 (Public Law 105–312; 112 Stat. 2963; 129 Stat. 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1430 IS

1 2579) is amended by striking ‘‘2017’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘2023.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
No. 62491.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of Los Angeles *v.*United States,

protest 329445-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# C_2016191EN.01001501.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 17 March 2016 — VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’ v Konkurences padome

(Case C-159/16)

(2016/C 191/19)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VAS ‘Starptautiskā lidosta “Rīga”’

Applicant:

Defendant: Konkurences padome

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 102 and 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that one and the same action of a State-owned undertaking may simultaneously be analysed from the point of view of the existence of State aid (as regards the possible grant of State aid to a client or trading partner) and from the point of view of abuse of a dominant position (discriminatory pricing)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 102 and 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that one and the same action of a State-owned undertaking may simultaneously be analysed from the point of view of the existence of State aid (as regards the possible grant of State aid to a client or trading partner) and from the point of view of abuse of a dominant position (discriminatory pricing)?

| 2. | Is there any order for or hierarchy of these two analyses? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is there any order for or hierarchy of these two analyses?

| 3. | May a public authority or court considering a case on infringement of competition rules with regard to the application of discriminatory pricing to the clients or trading partners of a State-owned undertaking declare that the actions of an economic operator infringe Article 102 TFEU if that infringement arises as a result of State aid being granted without complying with the preliminary examination procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May a public authority or court considering a case on infringement of competition rules with regard to the application of discriminatory pricing to the clients or trading partners of a State-owned undertaking declare that the actions of an economic operator infringe Article 102 TFEU if that infringement arises as a result of State aid being granted without complying with the preliminary examination procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU?

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 3.3 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
to the
AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
of
HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC. Horizon Offshore, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under laws of
the State of Delaware (the Corporation), does hereby certify that: FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Horizon Offshore, Inc. The
original Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the
Secretary of State of Delaware on December 19, 1995 under the name HLS
Offshore, Inc. SECOND: On March 31, 2004, the Board of Directors of the Corporation did
duly adopt a resolution setting forth a proposed amendment to the Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation declaring said
amendment to be advisable and directing that the proposed amendment be
submitted to a vote of the holders of the Corporations common stock at the
annual meeting of the Corporations stockholders. THIRD: On July 28, 2004, holders of more than a majority of the
Corporations common stock voted for the proposal to amend paragraph 1 of
Article IV of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation so that, as
amended, paragraph 1 of Article IV shall read in its entirety as follows:  1.
    
    Authorized Stock. The
Corporation shall be authorized to issue an
aggregate of 105,000,000 shares of capital
stock, of which 100,000,000 shares shall be
Common Stock, $1.00 par value per share
(the Common Stock), and 5,000,000 shares
shall be Preferred Stock, $1.00 par value
per share (the Preferred Stock). FOURTH: Said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions
of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. [Signature page follows]




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Horizon Offshore, Inc. has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be executed in its corporate name by its President and attested by
its Secretary, both thereto duly authorized this 28th day of July, 2004. HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Bill J. LamBill J. LamPresidentAttest:/s/ David W. SharpDavid W. SharpSecretary
 2
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1394 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1394

 To apply the medical certification standards of the Federal Aviation 
              Administration to operators of air balloons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2017

   Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To apply the medical certification standards of the Federal Aviation 
              Administration to operators of air balloons.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Commercial Balloon Pilot Safety Act 
of 2017''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATION STANDARDS TO OPERATORS 
              OF AIR BALLOONS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration shall revise part 61.3(c) of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations (relating to medical certificates), to apply to operators 
of air balloons to the same extent such regulations apply to operators 
of other aircraft.
    (b) Air Balloon Defined.--In this section, the term ``air balloon'' 
has the meaning given the term ``balloon'' in section 1.1 of title 14, 
Code of Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or 
ruling).
                                 <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 10651)

Entry No. 824—H, etc.

#### Charles A. Koons, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 23, 1963)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter for*the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of .the decision herein, involve the proper value for. dutiable purposes of certain seamless steel ■tubing and seamless steel casing.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise consists of seamless steel tubing and rseamless steel casing, exported from Italy, and that the facts and the law are similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *United States*v. *Dalmmter, Ine., R. W. Smith,*47 Oust. Gt. 577, A.R.D. 135.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in A.R.D. T35 be incorporated with the record in this case.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices at which such or similar imported merchandise was freely offered for sale for consumption in the United States, packed ready for delivery, in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers, at the time of exportation of the imported merchandise, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, were the prices shown on Schedule A hereto attached less 5.9414 per cent for general expenses and 0.8070 per cent for profit less ocean freight of $13.50 per metric ton less inland freight of $6.00 per metric ton less duty of 7% per ■ cent on casing Grade J-55 or 7% per cent plus 4 per cent on casing Grade N-80, or 12% per cent on tubing J-55 or 12% per cent plus 4 per cent on tubing •Grade N-80.

Upon tbe record before tire court and following the cited authority, I find and hold that United States value, as that value is defined in *390section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(e)), is the proper basis of value for the seamless steel tubing and seamless steel casing in issue and that said value is represented by the prices shown on schedule A, hereto attached, less 5.9414 per centum for general expenses and 0.8070 per centum for profit, less ocean freight of $13.50 per metric ton, less inland freight of $6 per metric ton, less duty of 7% per centum on casing grade J-55 or 7% per centum, plus 4 per centum on casing grade N-80, or 12*4 per centum on tubing grade J-55 or 12% per centum, plus 4 per centum on tubing grade N-80.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
##### 



Exhibit 12 AMERUS GROUP CO.
EXHIBIT 12  STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES Three Months Ended March 31,2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000($ in thousands)EarningsPre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    63,185
    
    
    $
    35,869
    
    
    $
    228,294
    
    
    $
    239,238
    
    
    $
    89,157
    
    
    $
    119,377
    
    
    $
    115,737Less: Minority interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    21,677Less: Income (loss) from equity investees
    
    
    1,410
    
    
    
    5,415
    
    
    
    8,105
    
    
    
    12,563
    
    
    
    (3,993
    )
    
    
    5,072
    
    
    
    3,481Add: Distributed income from equity investees
    
    
    47
    
    
    
    127
    
    
    
    564
    
    
    
    1,521
    
    
    
    2,591
    
    
    
    7,730
    
    
    
    4,44961,822
    
    
    
    30,581
    
    
    
    220,753
    
    
    
    228,196
    
    
    
    95,741
    
    
    
    122,035
    
    
    
    95,028Fixed charges
    
    
    92,673
    
    
    
    153,101
    
    
    
    556,985
    
    
    
    570,646
    
    
    
    492,093
    
    
    
    371,667
    
    
    
    344,363Total Earnings
    
    $
    154,495
    
    
    $
    183,682
    
    
    $
    777,738
    
    
    $
    798,842
    
    
    $
    587,834
    
    
    $
    493,702
    
    
    $
    439,391Fixed ChargesInterest credited to policyowners
    
    $
    84,447
    
    
    $
    144,327
    
    
    $
    523,231
    
    
    $
    538,622
    
    
    $
    464,022
    
    
    $
    341,575
    
    
    $
    312,008Interest expense on debt
    
    
    7,780
    
    
    
    8,398
    
    
    
    32,120
    
    
    
    30,154
    
    
    
    25,487
    
    
    
    26,011
    
    
    
    29,723Amortization of debt issuance costs
    
    
    236
    
    
    
    232
    
    
    
    928
    
    
    
    1,137
    
    
    
    985
    
    
    
    3,155
    
    
    
    1,833Estimate of interest within rental expense
    
    
    210
    
    
    
    144
    
    
    
    706
    
    
    
    733
    
    
    
    1,599
    
    
    
    926
    
    
    
    799Total Combined Fixed Charges
    
    $
    92,673
    
    
    $
    153,101
    
    
    $
    556,985
    
    
    $
    570,646
    
    
    $
    492,093
    
    
    $
    371,667
    
    
    $
    344,363Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.67
    
    
    
    1.20
    
    
    
    1.40
    
    
    
    1.40
    
    
    
    1.19
    
    
    
    1.33
    
    
    
    1.28
Exhibit 8.1



SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES



The table below sets forth certain of our subsidiaries, the names under which they do business, and their jurisdictions of establishment as of the date of
this annual report.



|Name of Company                                           |  | Jurisdiction ofEstablishment
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Sercotel, S.A. de C.V.                                    |  | Mexico                      
|AM Treasury, LLC                                          |  | Delaware                    
|Telcel (Radiomóvil Dipsa, S.A. de C.V.)                   |  | Mexico                      
|SubDipsa Treasury LLC                                     |  | Delaware                    
|TracFone Wireless, Inc.                                   |  | Florida                     
|Telecom Américas Ltd.                                     |  | Bermuda                     
|ATLAlgar Telecom Leste S.A.                              |  | Brazil                      
|Tess S.A.                                                 |  | Brazil                      
|Americel S.A.                                             |  | Brazil                      
|Telet S.A.                                                |  | Brazil                      
|BSE S.A.                                                  |  | Brazil                      
|Albra Telecomunicaçoes Ltda.                              |  | Brazil                      
|Alecan Telecomunicaçoes Ltda.                             |  | Brazil                      
|Stemar Telecomunicaçoes Ltda.                             |  | Brazil                      
|Comunicación Celular S.A. (Comcel)                        |  | Colombia                    
|Occidente y Caribe Celular S.A. (Occel)                   |  | Colombia                    
|Celcaribe S.A.                                            |  | Colombia                    
|Telecomunicaciones de Guatemala, S.A.                     |  | Guatemala                   
|Servicios de Comunicaciones Personales Inalámbricas, S.A. |  | Guatemala                   
|Servicios de Comunicaciones de Nicaragua, S.A..           |  | Nicaragua                   
|Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones, S.A. CONECEL |  | Ecuador                     
|TechtelLMDS Comunicaciones Interactivas, S.A.            |  | Argentina                   
|Telstar, S.A.                                             |  | Uruguay                     
|Speedy Móvil, S.A. de C.V.                                |  | Mexico                      
|CompUSA, Inc.                                             |  | Delaware