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

**Certification of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc.  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  regarding Annual Report on Form 10-KSB  for the year ended June 30, 2015**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title  18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Nevada Classic  Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), doeshereby certify that, based upon her knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended    June 30, 2015 (the "Form 10-KSB") fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  the Company.

> 
 

| Dated: October 12, 2015 | By: /s/ Brad Brimhall                                   |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                                         |
|                    | Brad Brimhall                                           |
|                    | Chief Accounting Officer/Acting Chief Financial Officer |

>
No. 58895.

protests 209502-K, 201928-K, and 210952-K (New York).

#### Edgar C. Hyman Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*323Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of veils similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 57645, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: George M. Bishop, III v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 111 5

- CV

Trial court case number: 36282

Trial court: 2 1st District Court of Washington County

Appellant, George M. Bishop. III

, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s

“Modified Judgment of Partially Probated Suspension .” A nd, a ppellant ha s filed a m otion

t o s tay “the active suspension” pending resolution of the appeal

. We deny the motion to

stay

. See Tex. R. Disciplinary P. 3.1 3 (providing judgment of suspension may be stayed

during pendency of appeal if district court finds, upon competent evidence, that

appellant’s “continued practice of law does not pose a continuing threat to the welfare of

[appellant’s] clients or to the pub lic”) ; Favaloro v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline , 13

S.W.3d 831, 840 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2000, no pet.) (concluding appellant who did not

show he filed trial court motion to stay suspension did not meet burden to prove

continued practice of law did not pose threat).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ January 8, 2019

___
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000403 26-APR-2012 11:49 AM

NO. SCPW-12-0000403 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
ELIZABETH FISHER, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE HILARY B. GANGNES, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI ' I; and LORNA SOUZA, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 1RC12-1-00925) ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Elizabeth Fisher's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that the denials of petitioner's motions to quash service of the complaint and summons are reviewable on appeal from a judgment for possession that may be entered in Civil No. 1RC12-1­ 00925. See Ciesla v. Reddish , 78 Hawai ' i 18, 889 P.2d 702 (1995). Petitioner can obtain appellate review of the matters raised in the motions to quash by appealing from a judgment for possession and seeking a stay of the judgment pending appeal pursuant to HRAP Rule 8. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis , 91 Hawai ' i 200, 204, 982P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, April 26, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4805 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-4007

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Joseph Paul Marshall, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 22, 2006 Filed: August 25, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After Joseph Paul Marshall admitted viol ating the conditions of his supervised release, the district court 1 revoked it and sentenced him to 15 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that this sentence exceeds the legal maximum because he received a 3-year term of supervised release when he was originally sentenced in 1998. We disagree. “For those defendants whose offense of conviction occurred after the 1994 changes [t o the supervised release statute], the available supervised release term is not measured by the term initially imposed by the-2- district court, . . . but by the term author ized in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b) for the offense of conviction, minus the aggregate amount of any revocation terms of imprisonment.” United States v. Palmer , 380 F.3d 395, 398-99 (8th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Marshall’s instant revocation sentence, added to his earlier revocation prison term of 12 months, does not exceed the 60-month lawful maximum. See18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1) and (h). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12-4

                  THE DETROIT EDISON SECURITIZATION FUNDING LLC
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



(in Thousands of Dollars)                                                     Year Ended December 31
                                                                  ------------------------------------------
                                                                     2004             2003           2002
                                                                  ----------      ------------     ---------
<S>                                                              <C>              <C>             <C>
EARNINGS:
   Pre-tax earnings...........................................   $         -     $           -    $        -
   Fixed charges..............................................        95,677           100,480       104,873
                                                                  ----------      ------------     ---------
NET EARNINGS                                                     $    95,677     $     100,480    $  104,873
                                                                  ==========      ============     =========

FIXED CHARGES:
   Interest expense...........................................   $    95,677     $     100,480    $  104,873
                                                                  ----------      ------------     ---------
Fixed charges                                                    $    95,677     $     100,480    $  104,873
                                                                  ==========      ============     =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                      1.00              1.00          1.00
                                                                  ==========      ============     =========


</TABLE>
# C_2016350EN.01001401.xml

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.

(Case C-289/16)

(2016/C 350/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kamin und Grill Shop GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is there already a ‘direct’ sale to the final customer within the meaning of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (1) where the operator or his sales personnel sells the products to the final customer without the intervention of a third party, or does a ‘direct’ sale additionally require that the sale occurs at the place where the products are stored when both the operator or his sales personnel and the final consumer are present at the same time?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Mercer Insurance Group, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, herebycertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

1.  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operation of the Company.

 
|   | By:    | /s/Andrew R.  Speaker                        |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |  Andrew  R. Speaker,                    |
|   |   |  President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   | By:    | /s/David B.  Merclean                        |   |
|   |   |  David  B. Merclean,                    |
|   |   |  Chief  Financial Officer               |

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 99.2

The following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Financial
Officer of Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc. on the basis of such officer's knowledge
and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2002 (the "Report"), I,
Daniel R. Kadolph, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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, 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 Company.


                                             /s/Daniel R. Kadolph
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:  Daniel R. Kadolph
                                             Title:  Senior Vice President and
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                             Date:  November 1, 2002
# C_2017221EN.01002001.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Airhole Facemasks v EUIPO — sindustrysurf (AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT)

(Case T-107/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark AIR HOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Power to alter decisions))

(2017/C 221/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Airhole Facemasks, Inc. (Vancouver, Canada) (represented by: S. Barker, Solicitor, and A. Michaels, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: sindustrysurf, SL (Trapagaran, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 2547/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Airhole Facemasks and sindustrysurf.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2016 (Case R 2547/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Airhole Facemasks, Inc. and sindustrysurf, SL, and alters it to the effect that the appeal brought before EUIPO by sindustrysurf against the Cancellation Division’s decision of 30 July 2014 is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 January 2016 (Case R 2547/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Airhole Facemasks, Inc. and sindustrysurf, SL, and alters it to the effect that the appeal brought before EUIPO by sindustrysurf against the Cancellation Division’s decision of 30 July 2014 is dismissed;

| 2. | Orders Airhole Facemasks and EUIPO to bear their own respective costs incurred before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Airhole Facemasks and EUIPO to bear their own respective costs incurred before the General Court;

| 3. | Orders sindustrysurf to pay the costs incurred by Airhole Facemasks before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders sindustrysurf to pay the costs incurred by Airhole Facemasks before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

| 4. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

1

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                          WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
                                   FORM 10-QSB
                          QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2004

                       CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS

I, Edward J. McKeon, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Western
Reserve Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify the following:

         -        This Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of
                  Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
                  1934, and

         -        The information contained in the report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial position and results of
                  operations of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of and for the
                  periods presented.

                                           /s/ Edward J. McKeon
                                           Edward J. McKeon
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           May 11, 2004

                                    Page 28
# C_2018072EN.01002201.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

(Case C-467/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of Freedom, Security and Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Lugano II Convention - Lis pendens - Concept of court - Arbitration authority under Swiss law, responsible for the conciliation procedure prior to all substantive proceedings))

(2018/C 072/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brigitte Schlömp

Applicant:

Defendant: Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 27 and 30 the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of lis pendens, the date on which a mandatory arbitration procedure was lodged before an arbitration authority under Swiss law is the date on which a ‘court’ is deemed to be seised.

---

(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.

1

---
# C_2017256EN.01002501.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Kneidinger v EUIPO — Topseat International (toilet seat)

(Case T-286/16) (1)

1

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a toilet seat - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2017/C 256/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ernst Kneidinger (Wilhering, Austria) (represented by: M. Grötschl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Topseat International (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, A. von Mühlendahl, and P. Böhner, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2016 (Case R 1030/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Topseat International and Mr Kneidinger.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ernst Kneidinger to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ernst Kneidinger to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

1

---
June 9, 2015

Taylor Bloom

Owner Frontdoorphotos 4717 West Terry Circle Holland, MI 49424

Dear Mr. Bloom:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 9, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Frontdoorphotos into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0659), but we are unabl e to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Before the Third Division,

December 8, 1959

No. 63579.

protest 58/21516 (New York).

#### Nechemia Glezer *& Co. v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

From an examination of the official papers, it appears that on August 12, 1957, and on March 10, 1958, the plaintiff wrote the collector requesting a refund of duty. On March 26, 1958, plaintiff objected to the liquidation, failing to refund certain duties, which the collector filed as a protest on March 31, 1958. When the case was called for trial, defendant moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it was not filed within 60 days after liquidation, as provided in section 514. It appearing that the pro*425test was filed too late, the protest was dismissed. It was noted that the infirmity of untimeliness would exist, eren if plaintiff’s earliest letter of inquiry to the collector could be deemed a protest.