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 of European Micro Holdings, Inc. (the
      “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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 operation of the Company.


Date:October16,
                2006
            By:
            */s/
              Jay P.
              Nash*Name:Jay
                  P. Nash
                  Title:Chief
                    Financial
                    Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to European Micro Holdings, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by European Micro Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 

NOTICE TO VACATE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

Wade M. Hansard, # 76676 

Annette A. Ballatore-Williamson, # 192176 

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard 

Wayte & Carruth LLP 

P.O. Box 28912 

5 River Park Place East 

Fresno, CA 93720-1501 

Telephone: (559) 433-1300 

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300 

Attorneys for Defendant 

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK 

(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

KERRY MEEKER dba MEEKER 

CONSTRUCTION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF 

NEW YORK; and DOES 1 - 100, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV S 04 1096 WBS DAD 

NOTICE TO VACATE JULY 5, 2005 

PRETRIAL SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, INSURANCE CORPORATION OF NEW 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-01096-WBS-DAD Document 14 Filed 07/01/05 Page 1 of 2
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,

SHEPPARD, W AYTE &

CARRUTH LLP 

5 RIVER PA RK PLACE EAST

FRES NO, CA 93720-1501 

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 

2 

NOTICE TO VACATE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

YORK (“INSCORP”), and Plaintiff, KERRY MEEKER dba MEEKER CONSTRUCTION, 

presently have a pending settlement agreement and therefore request that this Court vacate the 

pretrial conference scheduled for July 5, 2005. 

 

Dated: June 30, 2005 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD 

WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 

By: /s/ Annette A. Ballatore-Williamson 

Wade M. Hansard 

Annette A. Ballatore-Williamson 

Attorneys for Defendant 

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF NEW 

YORK 

Dated: June 24, 2005 

 THE SCHARF LAW FIRM 

 By__/s/__Robert W. Scharf___________________ 

 Robert W. Scharf 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. If for any reason the settlement is not consummated, the 

parties shall take the necessary steps to have the matter reset for pretrial conference and trial. 

Dated: June 30, 2005 

42388/00019-837213.v1 

Case 2:04-cv-01096-WBS-DAD Document 14 Filed 07/01/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 63066.

#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/13373 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Assignment and Assumption Agreement, dated as of April 16, 2008



 Exhibit 10.17 
 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT 
 THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (the
“Agreement”) is entered into as of November 30, 2007 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Assignee”), and Local Insight Media,
L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, as successor to Local Insight Media, LLC (“Assignor”). Assignor and Assignee are each individually referred to herein as a “Party,” and collectively referred to as the
“Parties.” 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign to Assignee, and Assignee desires to assume, all Assignor’s rights and obligations under that certain Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) dated
as of January 2, 2007, by and between Assignor and Marilyn B. Neal; 
 NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Assignment and Assumption. 

 1.1 Assignor hereby
assigns, transfers and sets over to Assignee, and Assignee hereby assumes, all Assignor’s right, title, interest, powers, privileges, remedies, duties, liabilities and obligations under the Employment Agreement. As of the Effective Date,
Assignee shall become entitled to all such right, title, interest, powers, privileges and remedies of Assignor and subject to all such duties, liabilities and obligations of Assignor, in each case as if Assignee were the original party to the
Employment Agreement. 
 1.2 As of the Effective Date, the term “Company,” as used in the Employment Agreement, shall refer to
Assignee, and Assignee will be bound by and perform Assignor’s obligations under the Employment Agreement. 
  

	2.	Miscellaneous. 

 2.1 This Agreement shall be
governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Colorado, without regard to conflicts of law provisions. 
 2.2. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement shall not be altered, amended, modified or otherwise changed by any oral communications
of any kind or character, or by any written communication, unless signed by a duly authorized representative of each of the Parties. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date
first written above. 
  

			
	LOCAL INSIGHT REGATTA HOLDINGS, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ JOHN S. FISCHER

	Name:	 	John S. Fischer
	Title:	 	General Counsel and Secretary
	
	LOCAL INSIGHT MEDIA, L.P.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ JOHN S. FISCHER

	Name:	 	John S. Fischer
	Title:	 	General Counsel and Secretary


  

 2
(Reap. Dec. 11006)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5733-H.

(Decided June 10, 1965)

*Sharp é Bogam,*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seep).

> *7042. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price ('Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164), as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 54019.

#### Cohen Wholesale Grocer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 142175-K/1722 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

When this case was called for trial it was submitted upon the official papers, the plaintiff having indicated by letter that “the grounds we have for the protest are fully and completely set out in the protest, and that our appearance to argue the same would be superfluous.” An examination of the record failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
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

1

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION [Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 29]

ALESA SCHACHTER (SBN 102542)

KELLIE M. MURPHY(SBN 189500)

JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS

A Professional Law Corporation

California Plaza

2180 Harvard Street, Suite 560

Sacramento, CA 95815

Telephone: (916) 921-5800

Facsimile: (916) 921-0247

Attorneys for Defendants LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, EUNYOUNG

HWANG, MARISSA SAYAGO, RICHARD BOOTH, and BRUCE WERNER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHLEEN BALL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT, Educational subdivision of

Sacramento; EUNYOUNG HWANG, both

individually and in her capacity as acting Head

of the Art Department of the Los Rios

Community College District; MARISSA

SAYAGO, both individually and in her

capacity as Alternate Head of the Art

Department of the Los Rios Community

College District; RICHARD BOOTH, both

individually and in his capacity as 

Dean of Instruction of the Los Rios Community

College District; BRUCE WERNER, both

individually and in his capacity as Vice

President of the Folsom Lake/El Dorado and

Rancho Cordova Centers of the Los Rios

Community College District, and DOES 1 to

1000, inclusive;

Defendants.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CIV.S-04-0970 MCE JFM

STIPULATION AND ORDER

REGARDING DEPOSITION OF

PLAINTIFF [Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 29]

IT IS STIPULATED by and between all parties, through their respective counsel, that the

continued deposition of Plaintiff Kathleen Ball will take place on the following dates and times, at

the following place:

DATE: October 31, 2006

TIME: 10:00 A.M.

Case 2:04-cv-00970-MCE -EFB Document 33 Filed 10/12/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION [Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 29]

DATE: November 10, 2006

TIME: 9:00 A.M.

PLACE: Johnson Schachter & Lewis

A Professional Corporation

2180 Harvard Street, Suite 560

Sacramento, California 95815

If the deposition is not completed on the dates set forth above, the parties will schedule

additional dates for the completion of the deposition. 

This stipulation is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 29.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: October 6, 2006 JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS

A Professional Law Corporation

 /s/ Kellie M. Murphy 

KELLIE M. MURPHY

Attorneys for Defendants

DATED: LAW OFFICES OF FRANK J. DEBENEDETTO

 /s/ Frank J. DeBenedetto 

FRANK J. DEBENEDETTO

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 11, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00970-MCE -EFB Document 33 Filed 10/12/06 Page 2 of 2
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SHERIE WHITE,

NO. CIV. S-04-0620 WBS KJM

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER RE: COSTS

GMRI, INC., dba Red Lobster,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On November 21, 2005, the court entered final judgment

in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff then submitted a cost bill

totaling $729.48. Defendant does not object.

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and Local Rule 54-292(f) govern the taxation of costs to losing

parties, subject to limits set under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See 28

U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(d)(1) (“[C]osts other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as

of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise

directs . . . .”); L.R. 54-292(f); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T.

Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987) (limiting taxable costs

to those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920). The district court has

Case 2:04-cv-00620-WBS -CMK Document 72 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters’ Lab.,

Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). The losing party has

the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding

costs to the prevailing party. See Russian River Watershed

Protection Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th

Cir. 1998); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523.

After reviewing the bill, the court finds all costs to

have been previously awarded by order of this court. (See Jan.

20, 2006 Order.)

Accordingly, costs of $729.48 will be denied.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 17, 2006

 

Case 2:04-cv-00620-WBS -CMK Document 72 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 16, 2018

No. 04-18-00751-CV

IN RE R.P., III, N.J.P., L.M.P., T.J.P., AND D.D.P.,

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-02162

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, which we construe 

also as a response to our November 1, 2018 order requesting that counsel reasonably explain the 

failure to timely file the notice of appeal under Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 615 (1997), 

is granted. Although the clerk’s record in this case has been filed, neither the docketing statement 

nor the reporter’s record in this case has been filed. We ORDER counsel for appellant, Shawn 

Sheffield, to file the docketing statement within 10 days of this order.

Furthermore, on October 30, 2018, this court notified the court reporter, Elva Chapa, that 

the reporter’s record was past due and the reporter’s record must be filed within 10 days of our 

letter. The court reporter has not filed the reporter’s record or otherwise responded to our 

October 30, 2018 letter. We therefore ORDER the court reporter, Elva Chapa, to file the 

reporter’s record within 10 days of this order. Requests for additional time to file the reporter’s 

record will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of November, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4116 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4116

To amend title 10, United States Code, to allow members of the Selected 
   Reserve and National Guard holding employment within the Federal 
 Government the choice between military and civilian healthcare plans, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 11 (legislative day, April 10), 2024

Mr. Blumenthal (for himself, Ms. Smith, Ms. Sinema, and Mr. Fetterman) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to allow members of the Selected 
   Reserve and National Guard holding employment within the Federal 
 Government the choice between military and civilian healthcare plans, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Servicemember Healthcare Freedom Act 
of 2024''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Thousands of members of reserve components and the 
        National Guard, in addition to their military service, work for 
        the United States Government in a civilian capacity.
            (2) Nearly all members of the Selected Reserve and the 
        National Guard, and their families, are entitled to purchase a 
        TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) healthcare plan as a service-
        related benefit.
            (3) As of the day before the date of the enactment of this 
        Act, eligibility for Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) 
        prohibits members of the Selected Reserve and National Guard 
        from enrolling in TRS plans.
            (4) Removal of such prohibition for members of the Selected 
        Reserve and the National Guard will provide continuity of care 
        throughout mobilization cycles.
            (5) Providing members of the Armed Forces with the ability 
        to purchase comprehensive, low-cost health insurance increases 
        the readiness and lethality of the Armed Forces as a whole.

SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF EXPIRATION DATE TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE 
              SELECTED RESERVE AND NATIONAL GUARD, ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL 
              EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS, TO ENROLL INTO TRICARE RESERVE 
              SELECT AS OF JANUARY 1, 2025.

    Section 1076d(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``January 1, 2030'' and inserting ``January 1, 2025''.
                                 <all>
```
----

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises

(2006/C 285/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----
No. 51988.

#### Mearl Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 120513-K, etc. (Portland, Maine).

*159Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of fish scales similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Edward I. Petow & Son*(34 C. C. P. A. 55, C. A. D. 343). In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited the claim for free entry under paragraph 1677 was sustained.
May 13, 1959

No. 63079.

Suit 4959.

#### Koeller-Struss Company *v.*United States.

C.D. 1963 affirmed February 5, 1959. C.A.D. 702.
<PAGE>





                         NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                    Exhibit 24
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     Each person whose signature appears below does hereby make,  constitute and
appoint John J.  Bongiorno,  Phyllis E. Cochran and William W. Jones and each of
them  acting  individually,  true and lawful  attorneys-in-fact  and agents with
power to act without the other and with full power of substitution,  to execute,
deliver and file, for and on such person's behalf, and in such person's name and
capacity or capacities as stated below, any amendment,  exhibit or supplement to
the Form 10-K Report making such changes in the report as such  attorney-in-fact
deems appropriate.


                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the  requirements of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, this
report  has  been  signed  below  by the  following  persons  on  behalf  of the
registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
      Signature                   Title                          Date
<S><C>                    <C>                                <C>
/s/JOHN J. BONGIORNO      President and Chief Executive      December 21, 1998
   John J. Bongiorno      Officer; Director
                          (Principal Executive Officer)

/s/R. WAYNE CAIN          Vice President and Treasurer;      December 21, 1998
   R. Wayne Cain          Director
                          (Principal Financial Officer)

/s/PHYLLIS E. COCHRAN     Vice President and Controller;     December 21, 1998
   Phyllis E. Coch        Director
                         (Principal Accounting Officer)

/s/JOHN R. HORNE          Director                           December 21, 1998
   John R. Horne


/s/THOMAS M. HOUGH        Director                           December 21, 1998
   Thomas M. Hough

</TABLE>




<PAGE>


                         NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES


                             SIGNATURES (Continued)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
      Signature                   Title                          Date

<S><C>                    <C>                                <C>
/s/ROBERT C. LANNERT      Director                           December 21, 1998
   Robert C. Lannert


/s/J. STEVEN KEATE        Director                           December 21, 1998
   J. Steven Keate


/s/THOMAS D. SILVER       Director                           December 21, 1998
   Thomas D. Silver
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements for the Ionics 1979 Stock Option Plan on Form S-8 (registration
nos. 33-54293, 33-41598, 33-5814, 33-14194, 2-64255, 2-72936 and 2-82780);
in the registration statement for the Ionics Section 401(k) Stock Savings
Plan on Form S-8 (registration no. 33-2092); in the registration statement
for the Ionics 1994 Restricted Stock Plan (No. 33-509051); and in the
registration statement for the Ionics 1986 Stock Option Plan for Non-
Employee Directors (registration no. 33-54400), of our reports dated
February 20, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
and the financial statement schedule of Ionics, Incorporated as of
December 31, 1995 and 1994 and for each of the three years in the period
ended December 31, 1995, which are included or incorporated by reference
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                             /S/COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 1996
















100/
No. 50968.

#### Protests 109331-K, etc., of John Arconti et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.