alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of Phantom Fiber Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kevin Kading, Principal Executive Officer & Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

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.


June 4, 2009                                      /s/ Kevin Kading
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Kevin Kading
                                                  Principal Executive Officer &
                                                  Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.0



            INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT




The Board of Directors
First BancTrust Corporation


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
First BancTrust Corporation on Form S-8 (Registration Statement Nos. 333-91466
and 333-114943) of our report dated February 21, 2006 on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of First BancTrust Corporation as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004 and for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and
2003, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ BKD, LLP
Decatur, IL
March 27, 2006
U.S. Treasury Check Security Features

Ultraviolet Overprinting Pattern

A protective ultraviolet pattern, invisible to the 

naked eye, consisting of four lines of “FMS” or 

"FISCALSERVICE” bracketed by the “Fiscal 

Service” or “Financial Management Service” 

seal on the left and United States Seal (eagle) 

on the right. This pattern can usually be found 

under the payee information and dollar amount 

area. The FISCAL SERVICE pattern and seals 

can be detected under a black light. If the 

amount box is shaved or altered in any way, a 

space will be created in the ultraviolet area. 

When exposed to black light, the ink used in 

the pattern and the seal will glow. This 

fluorescent quality cannot be photocopied.

Treasury Seal 

The seal identifies the “Bureau of the Fiscal Service” or 

"Financial Management Service." The previous seal 

reflecting “Financial Management Service” will be seen 

in rotation until this check stock runs out.

Bleeding Ink

The Treasury seal, located to the right of the Statue of 

Liberty, contains security ink that will run and turn red 

when moisture is applied to the black ink of the seal.

Microprinting

Microprinted words are so small they appear as just a 

line to the naked eye. However, when magnified, they 

become visible. Microprinting cannot be duplicated by a 

copier and when a check is counterfeited, it will often 

show up as a solid line or a series of dots. The U.S. 

Treasury check has three areas where microprinting is 

used.

Watermark

All U.S. Treasury checks are printed on 

watermarked paper. The watermark 

reads “U.S. TREASURY” and can be 

seen from both the front and back of the 

check when held up to a light. The 

watermark is light and cannot be 

reproduced by a copier. Any check not 

having the watermark should be 

suspected as being counterfeit or copied.

You may verify check issue information using the Bureau of the Fiscal Service Treasury Check Verification System (TCVS) at: https://tcvs.fiscal.treasury.gov 

June 2021
# C_2020061EN.01003701.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/37

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2019 — repowermap.org v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)

(Case T-188/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Work mark REPOWER - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 61/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

---
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 19-1754 

JEFFREY BOUDREAU, as Personal Representative of the Estate of 

Wendy Boudreau, 

Plaintiff, Appellant, 

v. 

SHAW'S SUPERMARKETS, INC., 

Defendant, Appellee. 

ERRATA SHEET

 The opinion of this Court, issued on April 10, 2020, is 

amended as follows: 

On page 18, line 13, replace "173.!" with "173."
No. 64088.

protest 59/19440 (New York).

#### Witkowski N. Y. Agency, Inc., and J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of photographic lenses similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61631, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1416 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1416

  To amend title 28, United States Code, to redefine the eastern and 
              middle judicial districts of North Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 2017

 Mr. Tillis (for himself and Mr. Burr) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28, United States Code, to redefine the eastern and 
              middle judicial districts of North Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. JUDICIAL DISTRICTS OF NORTH CAROLINA.

    (a) In General.--Section 113 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and Wilson and'' and 
        inserting ``Wilson, those portions of Hoke, Moore, Scotland, 
        and Richmond counties encompassing the Fort Bragg Military 
        Reservation and Camp Mackall, and''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
    ``(b) Middle District.--The Middle District comprises the counties 
of Alamance, Cabarrus, Caswell, Chatham, Davidson, Davie, Durham 
(excluding that portion of Durham County encompassing the Federal 
Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina), Forsyth, Guilford, 
Hoke (excluding that portion of Hoke County encompassing the Fort Bragg 
Military Reservation and Camp Mackall), Lee, Montgomery, Moore 
(excluding that portion of Moore County encompassing the Fort Bragg 
Military Reservation and Camp Mackall), Orange, Person, Randolph, 
Richmond (excluding that portion of Richmond County encompassing the 
Fort Bragg Military Reservation and Camp Mackall), Rockingham, Rowan, 
Scotland (excluding that portion of Scotland County encompassing the 
Fort Bragg Military Reservation and Camp Mackall), Stanly, Stokes, 
Surry, and Yadkin.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall not 
apply to any action commenced or pending in any judicial district of 
North Carolina before the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Engineers

We refer to our
report auditing estimates of the natural gas, natural gas liquids and conventional oil reserves attributable to Husky Energy Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2009 (the Report).

We hereby consent to references to our name in the Companys Annual Report on Form 40-F to be filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Companys registration statement on Form F-9 (File No. 333-157389). We also confirm that we have read the Companys Annual Information
Form for the year ended December 31, 2009, dated February 24, 2010, and that we have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained in it that was derived from the Report or that is within our
knowledge as a result of the services we performed in connection with such Report.

Sincerely,

McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/    P. A. WELCH           
|P. A. Welch                  
|President & Managing Director
|                             
|Calgary, Alberta, Canada     
|February 24, 2010
# C_2018052EN.01002601.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — bet365 Group Ltd v EUIPO — Hansen (BET 365)

(Case T-304/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark BET 365 - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character acquired through use - Proof - Use of the mark for a number of purposes - Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 052/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: bet365 Group Ltd (Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Malynicz QC, and by R. Black and J. Bickle, Solicitors)

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, intervener before the General Court: Robert Hansen (Munich, Germany) (represented by M. Pütz-Poulalion, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 3243/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Hansen and bet365 Group.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2016 (Case R 3243/2014-5) in so far as it concerns the services in Class 41 listed in the registration of the EU trade mark BET 365; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2016 (Case R 3243/2014-5) in so far as it concerns the services in Class 41 listed in the registration of the EU trade mark BET 365;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

1

---
# Main

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT	DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2016 ReportingSection V

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2017-01	&"Arial,Bold"V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 12-8-16
Part 1 DRAFT

39

USSGL 

Account 

Number Begin/End

Auth Type 

Code Fund Type BETC

414201 E EP CXFERC

414201 E ER CXFERD

415100 E S EC

415100 E S EG

415100 E S EM

415100 E S EP

415100 E S ER

415100 E S ES

415100 E S ET

415100 E S TR

415200 E EC

415200 E EG

415200 E EM

415200 E EP

415200 E ER

415200 E ES

415200 E ET

415200 E TR

439200 E D ES

439200 E D ET

439200 E P ES

439200 E P ET

439200 E R ES

439200 E R ET

439200 E S ES

439200 E S ET

439300 E D ES

439300 E D ET

439300 E P EG

439300 E P ES

439300 E P ET

439300 E R ES

439300 E R ET

Left Side Attribute Combination Right Side Attribute Combination

Budgetary USSGL Accounts and Capital Transfer BETCs "CXFERC" and "CXFERD"

The sum of Capital Transfer BETC transactions (CXFERC and CXFERD) for a TAS must equal the sum of USSGL 

accounts 414201, 415100, 415200, 439200 and 439300

SM: USSGL / SMAF

Equal (=)

01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12

Rule Name:

Description:

Type:

Operand:

Fatal Period:

Proposed Analytical 

Period:

Edit Rule Number:

Fiscal Year 2020 Reporting

Section VII

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Detail Report

SUPPLEMENT

Bulletin No. 2020-21 DRAFT VII EDR - 1 IRC Handout 7/16/20
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

June 7, 2024 SC-2024-0261 Ex parte S.B. III PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: S.B. III v. Limestone County Department of Human Resources) (Limestone Juvenile Court: JU-21- 247.02; Civil Appeals: CL-2023-0628).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on June 7, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Sellers, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
#   1

#   2

#   3

#   4

#   5

#   6

#   7

#   8

#   9

#   10

#   11

#   12

#   13

#   14

#   15

#   16

#   17

#   18

#   19

#   20

#   21

#   22

#   23

#   24

#   25

#   26

#   27

#   28

#   29

#   30

#   31

#   32

#   33

#   34

#   35

#   36

#   37

#   38

#   39

#   40

#   41

#   42

#   43

#   44

#   45

#   46

#   47

#   48

#   49

#   50

#   51

#   52

#   53

#   54

#   55

#   56

#   57

#   58

#   59

#   60

#   61

#   62

#   63

#   64
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 Of The United States Code**

 

I, Steven J. Martin, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The ServiceMaster Company, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The ServiceMaster Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  Steven J. Martin |
|--------|-----------------------|
|   | Steven  J. Martin     |
|   | May 13, 2010     |
Exhibit 12
                                                                                
                                                                                
                 ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                        
                              (Dollars in Millions)
                                        
                                    1998      1997      1996      1995      1994
                                    ----      ----      ----      ----      ----


1. EARNINGS

 a) Income before interest expense,
    income tax, extraordinary
    item and undistributed
    equity earnings (2)......  $1,183.8  $1,053.2  $  996.6  $1,027.4  $  633.3
    
 b) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1)......      14.2      12.6      10.4       9.9       8.8
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 1(a) and 1(b).....  $1,198.0  $1,065.8  $1,007.0  $1,037.3  $  642.1
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
2. FIXED CHARGES

 a) Total interest expense
    including capital
    lease obligations........  $  123.0  $  115.2  $  116.3  $  117.2  $  105.7
    
 b) Capitalized interest.....       2.8       2.6       3.6       2.8       3.3


 c) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1)......      14.2      12.6      10.4       9.9       8.8
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 2(a) through 2(c).  $  140.0  $  130.4  $  130.3  $  129.9  $  117.8
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
FIXED CHARGES.................     8.56      8.18      7.73      7.99      5.45
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========


(1)  One-third of rental expense is considered to be the amount representing
     return on capital.
     
(2)  The results for 1995 reflect a $57.1 million pretax credit primarily
     from settlement gains resulting from lump sum pension payments from the
     pension plan to former employees who left the business in the
     nonmanagement work force restructuring.  Results for 1994 reflect a
     $196.5 million pretax charge associated with the nonmanagement work
     force restructuring.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4891



# 
A NTHONY G EORGE C OOK ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-143) Submitted: June 25, 2002 Decided: July 11, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Kornbrath, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Larry R. Ellis, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM:Anthony George Cook pled guilty to mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876 (1994), pursuant to a plea agreement. Cook appeals his sentence and conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Cook contends the Government breached the plea agreement. This Court reviews a claim of breach of a plea agreement de novo. United States v. Martin , 25 F.3d 211, 217 (4th Cir. 1994). Disputes about what the parties said or did are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. A defendant bears the burden of showing a breach of the plea agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Dixon , 998 F.2d 228, 230 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Connor , 930 F.2d 1073, 1076 (4th Cir. 1991). A careful review of the record shows the Government did not breach the plea agreement. Cook also contends the district court erred in determining the extent of the upward departure to which he was subject. The district court enhanced Cook’s offense level by fourteen based on extreme conduct, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.8 (2000), and dismissed and uncharged conduct, USSG § 5K2.21, thereby increasing Cook’s sentencing guidelines range from six to twelve months to fifty-one to sixty-three months. The district court’s determination of the extent of a departure is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hummer , 916 F.2d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 1990). The court must articulate a basis for the extent of the departure. See United States v. Gary , 18 F.3d 1123, 1130 (4th Cir. 1994). The district court at sentencing gave a detailed explanation of its reasons for departing to a sentence of 60 months, and we find the sentence was not an abuse of discretion.Accordingly, we affirm Cook’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 U NITED S TATES v. C OOKadequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. C OOK
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4339 — SCOR/Revios)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 191/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----