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


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust IV and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended March 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General
Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: May 11, 2007
_____________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

   The undersigned, Ronald J. Ivans, Chief Financial Officer of the managing
owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the 'Managing Owner'), of
World Monitor Trust--Series A ('Series A'), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

   (1) Series A's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 27,
       2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
       hereof (the 'Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       Series A.

/s/ Ronald J. Ivans
------------------------------------------------------
Ronald J. Ivans
Chief Financial Officer of the Managing Owner
August 11, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7156

DOUGLAS B. SEIBERT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. T. DONNELLY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-94-596)

Submitted: February 29, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas B. Seibert, Appellant Pro Se. Jack L. Gould, Fairfax,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Seibert v. Donnelly, No. CA-94-596 (E.D. Va. July 18, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1

 Statement Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
                              18 U.S.C Section 1350

      The undersigned, Kim S. Price, is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Citizens South Banking Corporation (the "Company").

      This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 (the "Report").

      By execution of this statement, I certify that:

      A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
            78o(d)) and

      B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
            Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.


November 13, 2002                         /s/ Kim S. Price
------------------                        -----------------------------------
Dated                                     Kim S. Price
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       20
No. 67785.

#### Maher & Company *v.*United States,

protest 61/11263-16269 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Document

Exhibit 10.29
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Addendum to Employment Agreement (this “Addendum”) is made and entered into as of December 18, 2020 by and between Nikki Krishnamurthy (“Employee”) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation.


WHEREAS:


1.Employee and the Company entered into an Employment Agreement dated April 9, 2019 (the “Employment Agreement”).
2.Employee and the Company have agreed that the Employment Agreement will be amended according to the terms and conditions in this Addendum.
3.This Addendum is deemed to form an integral part of the Employment Agreement.


EMPLOYEE AND THE COMPANY AGREE AS FOLLOWS, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 18, 2020:


Section 1(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“b.  Principal Work Location. Effective April 1, 2020, your principal place of employment became the Company’s office located at 1191 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington.”
Except for the modifications in this Addendum, all other terms and conditions contained in the Employment Agreement will remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.  Both this Addendum and the Employment Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the choice of law provisions set forth in the Employment Agreement.  This Addendum may be executed by pdf or other electronic signature and by one or more counterpart signatures, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.


[Signature Page Follows]


1










									
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
	 		
	\s1\		\s4\
	/s/ Nikki Krishnamurthy
		/s/ Dara Khosrowshahi
	Nikki Krishnamurthy		Dara Khosrowshahi
Chief Executive Officer
Uber Technologies, Inc. 

	 		
	\d1\		\d4\
	December 21, 2020
		December 18, 2020
	Date		Date


2
No. 53479.

protest 105457-K (Los Angeles).

#### Eastern Grocery Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protest was dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

This document relates to:

 : CIVIL ACTION

02-2635 SHIRK : NO. MDL 875

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 :

02-4339 MEYER :

Case 2:02-cv-04096-RB Document 5 Filed 08/05/2002 Page 1 of 2
O R D E R

The Court having been advised that the issues raised in

each of these actions are also presently pending before the

Honorable District Court Judge Alfred Wolin. Judge Wolin has

been specially designated to sit in the District of Delaware and

preside over these matters. Further, the Judge has set a

schedule and will proceed appropriately. In the interest of

judicial economy and for a prompt resolution of all outstanding

issues this Court will hold its action in abeyance and await the

ruling by the Bankruptcy Court.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that all

pending motions for abstention and remand are denied without

prejudice at this time with leave to renew at a later date. The

cases are administratively dismissed, subject to reinstatement

following the determination of the bankruptcy issues by Judge

Wolin and any subsequent appeals thereto.

Done this 5th day of August, 2002.

 BY THE COURT

 

Charles R. Weiner, SJ

Case 2:02-cv-04096-RB Document 5 Filed 08/05/2002 Page 2 of 2
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS48929 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL McGUIRK and JEANNIE E. : CIVIL ACTION

McGUIRK, Individually and on behalf of :

their minor children, MICHAEL J. McGUIRK, :

a minor, and THOMAS C. McGUIRK, a minor :

:

 v. :

 :

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY : NO. 02-4341

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2002, upon consideration of Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed October 11, 2002 and Plaintiffs’ Memorandum

in Opposition thereto filed November 25, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is

DENIED without prejudice to the right of Defendant to move for summary judgment when

discovery is complete.

BY THE COURT

____________________________________

Franklin S. Van Antwerpen, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04341-FVA Document 8 Filed 12/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4723 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.
Case No. 7,805.

#### KING v. SIMM.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 234.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1821.

Insolvency — Discharge of Principal under State Law — Exoneration of Bail.

If the principal be discharged under the insolvent law of one of the states after the judgment against mm in this court, and the motion to discharge the bail be made at the return term of the scire facias against the bail, the court will discharge him, upon payment of the costs of the scire facias.

[Cited in Channing v. Reiley, Case No. 2,590.]

The scire facias against Thomas Simm, special bail of Richard H. Love, was returned at December term, 1820, at which term the motion was made to exonerate the bail, on tlie ground that the principal has been discharged under the insolvent law of Virginia, since the judgment rendered against him in this court.

Mr. Turner, for plaintiff [C. B. King],

cited the following cases in this court, viz.: Boyer v. Herty [Case No. 1,753] in July, 1805; Byrne v. Carpenter [Id. 2.271] June term, 1808; Bussard v. Warner [Id. 2,229] at June term, 1815. And also Woolley v. Cobbe, 1 Burrows, 244; Cockerill v. Owston, Id. 430; Har. Ent. Plea of Insolvency of the Principal; 1 Saund. 2, 61; Walker v. Giblett, 2 W. Bl. 811; Donnelly v. Dunn, 1 Bos. & P. 448; 2 Bos. & P. 45; Martin v. O’Hara, Cowp. 823; Southcote v. Braithwaite, 1 Term R. C24.

Mr. Randall, for defendant

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. con.) ordered the ex-oneretur to be entered, on payment of the costs of the scire facias. The court at a former term had decided the same point in the case of Robert Bayley [unreported].
No. 63030.

#### Reliance International Mfg., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 296832-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of harness hardware for use with harness for dog;s the same in all material respects as that involved in *International Expediters, Inc., et al. v. United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 230, C.D. 1868), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

April 4, 1960

No. 64055.

protests 934853-G, etc. (New York).

#### Graves & Rodgers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2017374EN.01002402.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 August 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Protodikeio Rethymnis — Greece) — Criminal proceedings against K.

(Case C-475/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 374/35)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 428, 22.11.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LIGHT : CIVIL ACTION

:

 :

 v. :

:

 : 

HOTLINE : NO. 02-4357

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2002, in accordance with the court's

procedure for random reassignment of cases, it is hereby

ORDERED that the above-captioned case is reassigned from the calendar of

the Honorable Petrese B. Tucker to the calendar of the Honorable Timothy J. Savage.

 FOR THE COURT:

 JAMES T. GILES 

 Chief Judge

 ATTEST:

 ___________________

 MICHAEL E. KUNZ

 Clerk of Court

Case 2:02-cv-04357-TJS Document 10 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 51346.

#### Protests 52857-K, etc., of Atlas Marine Supply Co. et al. (Los Angeles and San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the First Division,

October 3, 1947

No. 51930.

#### C. S. Emery & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 990441-G, etc. (St. Albans).

*144Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of polymerized vinyl acetate film similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 51693. In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS48911 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.
1Pursuant to this Court’s Order of September 24, 2002, the parties were to have filed and

served a joint status report on or before October 24, 2002. A copy of the October 25, 2002 report

shall be filed with this Order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TONG HO ZHANG, A-70-577-572 : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. :

 :

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney :

General and IMMIGRATION and :

NATURALIZATION SERVICE :

Respondents. : NO. 02-4377

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 2002, the Court having received a status report

from respondents, through counsel, dated October 25, 2002,1

IT IS ORDERED that on or before

December 30, 2002, the parties, through counsel, shall file and serve a joint status report with

respect to removal of petitioner to China and the need for further proceedings in this case. One

(1) copy of the said joint status report shall be served on the Court (Chambers, Room 12613)

when the original is filed. 

BY THE COURT:

 

 JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04377-JD Document 14 Filed 10/29/2002 Page 1 of 2
2

Case 2:02-cv-04377-JD Document 14 Filed 10/29/2002 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 1 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 2 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 3 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 4 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 5 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 6 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 7 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 8 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 9 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 10 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 11 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 12 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 13 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 14 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 15 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 16 of 17
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 38-2 Filed 12/02/2004 Page 17 of 17
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**865 CA 14-01786** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

ALBERTO POLANCO, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (CLAIM NO. 123819.)

ALBERTO POLANCO, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LAURA ETLINGER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Nicholas V. Midey, Jr., J.), entered September 23, 2014. The order granted the motion of defendant to dismiss the claim.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant, a prisoner at the Auburn Correctional Facility, commenced this action seeking damages based on the alleged negligence of the “State Parole Board Employees [in] fail[ing] to perform acts within the scope of their employment and in the discharge of their official duties.” The Court of Claims granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and that defendant is absolutely immune from liability. We affirm.

Contrary to claimant’s contention, “[r]egardless of how a claim is characterized, one that requires, as a threshold matter, the review of an administrative agency’s determination falls outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims” ( Green v State of New York , 90 AD3d 1577, 1578, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 18 NY3d 901). “Although claimant characterized his claim as one for money damages, upon our review of the record we conclude that adjudication of his claim requires review of the underlying administrative determination, over which the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction” ( id . at 1578-1579). In any event, the court also properly granted the motion based on absolute immunity. It is well established that “[d]eterminations pertaining to parole and its revocation . . . are deemed strictly sovereign and quasi-judicial in nature and, accordingly, [defendant], in making such determinations, is absolutely immune from tort liability” ( Semkus v State of New York , 272 AD2d 74, 75, lv denied 95 NY2d 761; see Arteaga**-2- 865 CA 14-01786** 

v State of New York , 72 NY2d 212, 217; Mertens v State of New York , 73 AD3d 1376, 1377, lv denied 15 NY3d 706). Here, “claimant has not articulated any facts to support his claim that the [Parole Board employees] acted in excess of their authority or in violation of any relevant rules or regulations” ( Loret v State of New York , 106 AD3d 1159, 1159, lv denied 22 NY3d 852; see Varela v State of New York , 283 AD2d 841, 841).

Entered: July 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-1213

LISA TSARELKA,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

KENNETH S. APFEL,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Torruella, Chief Judge,

Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Lisa Tsarelka on brief pro se.

Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Anita Johnson,

Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

October 3, 2000
-2-

Per Curiam. Appellant Lisa Tsarelka appeals from

the dismissal of her complaint. The district court

dismissed the complaint, by endorsement, based on the

reasons set out in the motion to dismiss filed by appellee,

Kenneth S. Apfel, the Commissioner of Social Security.

There was no error in the action of the district court and

the court's judgment is affirmed for essentially the reasons

set out in the motion to dismiss.

We add only that despite appellant's arguments to

the contrary, she has submitted no evidence that she ever

had presented her claim regarding the termination of her

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to an

administrative law judge (ALJ) or the Appeals Council.

Neither the ALJ nor the Council ever addressed such a claim.

Further, the Appeals Council's reference to the amount of

appellant's resources was made in a particular, limited

context. That is, this reference was made to explain the

Council's opinion that, given the little money appellant had

at her disposal in May 1997, repayment of $3,378 would not

further the purpose of the SSI program. Significantly, the
-3-

Appeals Council did not make the comment in relation to the

question whether appellant qualified for SSI benefits.

Affirmed. See Local Rule 27(c).