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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Brian R. Ervine, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations of EvolvingSystems, Inc.

 
| /s/  BRIAN R. ERVINE                                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian  R. Ervine                                                         |   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and  Administrative Officer |
| August 5, 2010                                                      |

 

 

This certification is furnished with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Suchcertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----
<ASX version="3.0">	<ENTRY>		<REF HREF="mms://multimedia.mcpa.virginia.edu/911/hearing10/2004041304_high.asf" />	</ENTRY></ASX>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service                               ( print page 78800)                            Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.                    

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 16, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 8, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 102 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-48, CP2024-48.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-25258 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
No. 61797.

#### Ittmann Brothers *v.*United States,

protests 312280-K/14882 and 312281-K/14883 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended,- the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# C_2019295EN.01001801.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission

(Case T-741/16) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of aspartame originating in China - Refusal to grant market economy treatment - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Article 2(7)(b) and (c), second indent, of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 2(10) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 3(2) and (6) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Article 6(7) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Non-conformity of accounting documents - Non-compliance with international accounting standards - Recourse to EU industry data - Request for adjustment - Burden of proof - Right to a fair hearing - Principle of sound administration - Legitimate expectations)

(2019/C 295/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and N. Kuplewatzky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hyet Sweet (Gravelines, France) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, F.-C. Laprévote and S. Branca, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1247 of 28 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aspartame originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2016 L 204, p. 92).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.

---
EXHIBIT
12
 
 
 **INDIANA
MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES**
 **Computation
of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges**
 **(in
thousands except ratio data)**
 
 **Year
      Ended December 31,****2000**
    
    **2001**
    
    **2002**
    
    **2003**
    
    **2004****FIXED
      CHARGES**Interest
      on First Mortgage Bonds
    
    $
    24,154
    
    $
    21,647
    
    $
    19,458
    
    $
    8,655
    
    $
    1,009Interest
      on Other Long-term Debt
    
    
    55,977
    
    
    56,597
    
    
    71,837
    
    
    71,110
    
    
    60,448Interest
      on Short-term Debt
    
    
    19,263
    
    
    13,088
    
    
    439
    
    
    1,200
    
    
    2,901Miscellaneous
      Interest Charges
    
    
    20,356
    
    
    3,929
    
    
    4,961
    
    
    5,242
    
    
    6,463Estimated
      Interest Element in Lease Rentals
    
    
    74,100
    
    
    74,000
    
    
    72,800
    
    
    70,300
    
    
    68,600**Total
      Fixed Charges**
    
    $
    193,850
    
    $
    169,261
    
    $
    169,495
    
    $
    156,507
    
    $
    139,421**EARNINGS**Net
      Income (Loss) Before Cumulative Effect of Accounting
Change
    
    $
    (132,032
    )
    $
    75,788
    
    $
    73,992
    
    $
    89,548
    
    $
    133,222Plus
      Federal Income Taxes
    
    
    (4,524
    )
    
    49,725
    
    
    44,647
    
    
    34,018
    
    
    60,689Plus
      State Income Taxes
    
    
    9,237
    
    
    9,442
    
    
    190
    
    
    7,130
    
    
    10,926Plus
      Fixed Charges (as above)
    
    
    193,850
    
    
    169,261
    
    
    169,495
    
    
    156,507
    
    
    139,421**Total
      Earnings**
    
    $
    66,531
    
    $
    304,216
    
    $
    288,324
    
    $
    287,203
    
    $
    344,258**Ratio
      of Earnings to Fixed Charges**
    
    
    0.34
    
    
    1.79
    
    
    1.70
    
    
    1.83
    
    
    2.46For
      the year ended December 31, 2000, the Earnings to cover Fixed Charges were
      deficient by $127,319,000.
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS
  
 I, Steven J. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of Z Trim Holdings, Inc., an Illinois corporation (the "Registrant"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1) the Report on Form 10-Q for the period of the Registrant ending September 30, 2010 (the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
 
 Dated:  November 15, 2010
 By                 /s/ Steven J. Cohen
 Steven J. Cohen
 President and Director
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust IV (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding IV, L.P.
for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marlene Debel,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV


                              By:  /s/ Marlene Debel
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Marlene Debel *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: May 12, 2006
_____________________

* Marlene Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
# C_2017293EN.01003102.xml

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert)

(Case T-780/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark mediaexpert - Earlier national word mark mediaexpert - Relative ground for refusal - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark - Registration certificate for the earlier mark - Translation - Rules 37 to 39 and Rule 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Legitimate expectations))

(2017/C 293/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mediaexpert S.A. (Warsaw)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 2583/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. and Mediaexpert S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

1

---
#### Stephen A. JIPP, Appellant, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee.

No. 84-1050.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 1984.

Decided July 6, 1984.

Michael Buchan, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

Robert A. Cannon and William L. Tannehill, Lincoln, Neb., for appellee.

Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Stephen A. Jipp, an employee of the Burlington Northern Railroad Company (Company), commenced an action against the Company for injuries allegedly sustained in the course of his employment. He contended that the Company was negligent in that it permitted hydraulic oil to leak from a trackmobile which it had failed to repair. The oil allegedly leaked onto a railroad tie. Jipp claimed he slipped on the oiled tie and injured his back. The Company denied Jipp’s claim. The issue was submitted to a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the Company.

Jipp filed a timely motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The district court denied the motion and Jipp appeals. We affirm.

*926An appeal from an order denying a new trial is generally not appealable as such, but most reviewing courts now treat such an appeal as being from the underlying judgment when both parties address the merits of that judgment. *In re W.F.A. Hurley, Inc.,*612 F.2d 392, 394 (8th Cir.1980); *Hennessy v. Schmidt,*583 F.2d 302, 304-306 (7th Cir.1978). We find Jipp’s appeal, however, to have little merit. The jury specifically found that the Company was not negligent and there is more than sufficient evidence in the record to support this finding.

Affirmed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1                     4,859,125.19      15,016,885.45         0.00        459,280,114.54
A2                     1,748,119.01       4,395,691.55         0.00        153,703,308.45
B                              0.00               0.00         0.00         88,217,985.53
R                      2,848,691.97               0.00         0.00                  0.00


</TABLE>
ex104.htm


    Exhibit
10.4

    Escrow
Agreement

    


    This
Escrow Agreement is made as of June 26, 2008, among Max
Engineering LLC, a Texas limited liability company (“Purchaser”), Lincoln
Wind, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company (“Seller”), Matthew
Cumberworth, an individual and sole owner of the Seller (“Owner”), and James
Watts, CPA (the “Escrow Agent”).

    


    Purchaser,
Seller, and Owner are parties to a certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated June
25, 2008 (the “Agreement”).  The parties hereto are executing and
delivering this Escrow Agreement pursuant to Paragraph 4.9(x) of the Agreement,
and accordingly, all definitions used in the Agreement are hereby incorporated
herein by this reference.  The parties desire the Escrow Agent to hold
and dispose of the Escrow Fund (as defined herein), and the Escrow Agent is
willing to do so on the terms and conditions herein.

    


    The parties make this Escrow Agreement
to ensure the payment in full of all unpaid payroll taxes assessed to Seller
through the date of the closing (the “Payroll Taxes”), exclusive of penalties,
fees, or interest previously incurred for delinquent payments. Cumberworth
agrees to satisfy the Payroll Taxes in full as soon as practicable following the
closing contemplated by the Agreement.

    


    Purchaser
shall deliver the sum of $37,490.14 (the “Escrow Fund”) to the Escrow Agent, on
the condition that when the Tax Liability is satisfied in full and receipt for
payment of the Tax Liability is given to the Escrow Agent, the Escrow Fund shall
be released to Owner.

    


    Dated June 26, 2008.

    


     

    
      
        	      
                Lincoln
      Wind, LLC

              	 	      
                Max
      Engineering LLC

              	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By 	/s/ MATTHEW CUMBERWORTH	 	By  	/s/ ANDREW HIDALGO	 
	 	Matthew
      Cumberworth, Manager  	 	 	Andrew
      Hidalgo, Director	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Owner	 	Escrow
      Agent	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	
                /s/
      MATTHEW CUMBERWORTH   

              	 	 	
                /s/
      JAMES WATTS

              	 
	 	
                Matthew
      Cumberworth 

              	 	 	
                James
      Watts, CPA
No. 59999.

#### W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States,

protest 56751-K (B) (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent the the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
Part 2

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT Fiscal Year 2015 Reporting

Section V

Bulletin No. 2015-03 V - 3

IRC Handout 12-2-2014

Line

No.

USSGL

Acct. USSGL Account Title Begin/End Fed/NonFed Reporting Type Code Addl. Info.

32

32 579500 Seigniorage E N E

33

33 579500 Seigniorage E N U

Cumulative Results of Operations - Funds From Dedicated 

Collections (Combined or Consolidated Totals) (Note 21)

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds (Combined 

or Consolidated Totals)

USSGL Crosswalk - Balance Sheet
# C_2018381EN.01003103.xml

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/31

---

Order of the General Court of 13 July 2018 — BBY Solutions v EUIPO — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY mobile)

(Case T-72/16) (1)

(2018/C 381/38)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---
November 25, 1958

No. 62497.

#### Helena Rubinstein, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 289222-K, etc.

Protests abandoned October 22, 1958. (Not published.) (Initial No. 190823-K (A).) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Case No. 15,010.

#### UNITED STATES v. DURLING.

[4 Biss. 509.] 1

District Court, N. D. Illinois.

Jan., 1869.

Witness—Recognizance por Appearance— Traveling Expenses.

1. It is the duty of the district attorney, in criminal prosecutions by the government, where he has any doubt whether witnesses will attend, to have them properly recognized.

2. If a witness subpoenaed by the government, has means to travel, it is not necessary for the officer to tender his traveling expenses; and the court will attach a witness who, on that ground, neglects to attend.

[Cited in Norris v. Hassler, 23 Fed. 582.]

3. The officer summoning witnesses should see that those who have no means to travel, are provided with necessary funds.

1

 [Reported by Josiah H. Biased, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

DRUMMOND, District Judge.

I wish to lay down a few rules upon this subject as a guide to the district attorney, upon which I will insist hereafter when this question comes up again. It is always within his power, under the law, where a person is within the jurisdiction of the court, and he doubts whether he will be present on the trial of the cause, to compel him to give security that he will be present at the trial; so that it was competent for the district attorney, when these parties were here and he doubted whether they would be present when the case was called for trial, to have them brought before a competent officer and recognized, and give security that they would be present. The law goes so far even as to declare that, in a criminal case, if they cannot give security they may be imprisoned until the trial, in order that their testimony may be given.

Again, where there is a witness residing in another district, the process of this court goes to that district. It is issued to the marshal of that district, and it is the duty of the person to whom it is addressed, if he has the means, to travel here to give his testimony. If he has not, the proper officer of the government will furnish him with means. It is not necessary, if he has the means, that the fees should be tendered to him before he is required to obey the process. An attachment would issue and the court would punish a man who could pay his expenses and would not come because the money was not tendered. It is only where a man has not the means of paying his expenses, that it is necessary for the money to be tendered to the witness in order to make it incumbent on him to obey the process of the court.

Hereafter, I wish it understood that those witnesses who have not the means of attending court must be furnished with the means when the subpoena is served, and if there is doubt entertained of their being present at the trial they must be compelled to give security; if they fail to do so, they must be held in custody until the trial.
No. 53484.

protest 140230-K (New York).

#### L. Bamberger & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32

                             WRITTEN CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The  undersigned  hereby  certify that the Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2004 filed by I.D. Systems, Inc. with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in
the report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the issuer.


                                             By:    /s/ Jeffrey M. Jagid
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Name:  Jeffrey M. Jagid
                                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                             Date: May 13, 2005


                                             By:     /s/ Ned Mavrommatis
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name:  Ned Mavrommatis
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer


                                             Date: May 13, 2005