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



U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 Form 40-F
 o
    
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 OR
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
    
    Commission File Number 001-15014
 Sun Life Financial Inc.
  Canada
 52411
 Not Applicable
 150 King Street West, 6 th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 1J9 (416) 979-4800
 Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada  U.S. Operations Holdings, Inc.
One Sun Life Executive Park
Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts 02481
(781) 237-6030
  Title of each class
    
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredCommon Shares
    
    
    New York Stock Exchange
  Not Applicable
  Not Applicable




---



##### 



þ      Annual information form
    
    þ      Audited annual financial statements
  Common Shares
    
    
    571,843,922Class A Preferred Shares Series 1
    
    
    16,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 2
    
    
    13,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 3
    
    
    10,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 4
    
    
    12,000,000
  o þ
  þ o
 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
 Disclosure Controls and Procedures
  Managements Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
  Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm
  Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
  Identification of Audit Committee




---



##### 



Audit Committee Financial Expert
 .
 Code of Ethics
   Principal Accountant Fees and Services
  Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
  Tabular Disclosure of Contractual Obligations
  UNDERTAKING




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  Sun Life Financial IncBy:
    
    /S/ Thomas A. BogartThomas A. BogartExecutive Vice-President andChief Legal OfficerDated: February 8, 2007
   EXHIBITS
 1.
    
    Consolidated Financial Statement for the Year Ended December 31, 20062.
    
    Annual Managements Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 20063.
    
    Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 20064.
    
    Sun Life Financial Code of Business Conduct5.
    
    Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants.6.
    
    Comments by Auditors on Canada - United States of America Reporting Difference7.
    
    Consent of Appointed Actuary8.
    
    Certifications required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of United States Code, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 20029.
    
    Certifications required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a), pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 1, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00047-CV

IN RE MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY GULF-INLAND, 

LLC AND MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LLC, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-80504

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 26, 2022, relators Marquette Transportation Company GulfInland, LLC and Marquette Transportation Company LLC filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel the Honorable Tanya 

Garrison, presiding judge of the 157th District Court of Harris County, to vacate her 
2

November 17, 2021 order denying relators’ motion to dismiss based on a forumselection agreement. 

Relators have not established that they are entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We also lift our stay 

entered on March 7, 2022. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-Qof Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30,2009, I, Martin S. Lapera, President and Chief Executive Officer of FrederickCounty Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of myknowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)          such Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          the information contained in such Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Frederick CountyBancorp, Inc.

 

 
| /s/ Martin S. Lapera                   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Martin S. Lapera                       |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Krystyna Przyjemski et al., Respondents, v Zbigniew Surowaniec, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 359]

—In an action to recover *327damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated 'May 12, 1994, which denied his motion, *inter alia,*to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the strong policy favoring disposition of actions on the merits and the clear intention of the plaintiffs not to abandon the action, the relatively brief delay on their part in properly responding to the 90-day notice does not warrant the drastic remedy of dismissal, especially where, as here, the defendant cannot show prejudice *(see, Conner v Brasserie, Inc.,*136 AD2d 481; *JMS Enters, v Belfield,*114 AD2d 886). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICECHAIR OF THE APPELLATE COURT 

PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 300

APPELLATE COURT RULES 

DOCKET

 ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2022, the Honorable J. Andrew Crompton (Ret.) 

is hereby designated as Chair, and Kristen W. Brown, Esquire, is designated as ViceChair, of the Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee, commencing June 30, 2022.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Bell, Appellant.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Francis Shunh Brown, III,*for appellant.

*James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorney, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*633November 29, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Allocatur is granted, the Order of the Superior Court is reversed, the Order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Spaulding in *Commonwealth v. Bell,*213 Pa. Superior Ct. 59, at 60-63 (1968).
#### Bernard Certilman et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiff, v Stuart Becker et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[633 NYS2d 960]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about May 12, 1994, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Lebedeff, J., without costs and disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
#### Michael A. Torre et al., Respondents, v Sylvia Vecchione et al., Appellants.

[635 NYS2d 493]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for partition of real property, the defendants appeal from an order and interlocutory judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated January 31, 1994, which, *inter alia,*directed that the property be sold at auction.

Ordered that the order and interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the failure of the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-title to contribute towards the maintenance of the subject property did not preclude the court from ordering partition by sale *(see, Bufogle v Greek,*152 AD2d 527).

We have examined the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
No. 57346.

protest 198191-K (New York).

#### Famous Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 59044.

protests 198427-K, etc. (New York).

#### Brenner Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643), the claim" for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1643, *supra.*
FILED IN12th COURT OF APPEALS        TYLER, TEXAS  7/1/2015 2:08:37 PM        CATHY S. LUSK                Clerk
CFOLetter






Exhibit 10.1 



March 19, 2015




C. Brad Richmond
10844 Emerald Chase Drive
Orlando, FL 32836


Dear Brad, 


Reference is made to your Agreement with Darden Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”), dated November 25, 2014 (the “Agreement”).  This letter (the “Letter”) confirms that your termination from active employment with the Company and all of its subsidiaries will occur upon the later of July 28, 2015 and the appointment of your successor (the “Separation Date”).  If your successor is appointed prior to July 28, 2015, then, from the date of such appointment to the Separation Date, you will no longer hold the title of SVP, CFO and will instead hold the title of SVP, Finance, and your role will be to assist in the leadership onboarding and transition of your successor.


You will remain actively employed and be paid your regular salary through the Separation Date.  To the extent any bonus is paid pursuant to the Management and Professional Incentive Plan (the “MIP”) for the applicable fiscal year, you will be eligible to receive a full MIP bonus award for the 2015 fiscal year and a prorated MIP bonus award for the 2016 fiscal year for your period of active employment.  You will be eligible to receive a full FlexComp award for the 2015 fiscal year and a prorated FlexComp award for the 2016 fiscal year for your period of active employment.  Your prorated MIP bonus award, if any, and prorated FlexComp award for the 2016 fiscal year will each be paid in August 2016.  You must return all Company Property (as defined in the Agreement) to the Company’s Chief Human Resources Officer within 24 hours of the Separation Date.


Except as specifically provided in this Letter, the Agreement will remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


Brad, if this Letter correctly sets forth our agreement, please sign and date the enclosed copy where indicated and return it to me.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,


BY: /s/ Gene Lee    3/19/15
Gene Lee, Chief Executive Officer    Date


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED


/s/ C. Bradford Richmond    3/19/15
C. Bradford Richmond    Date
No. 45018.

#### Protest 993604-G of N. Y. Merchandise Co., Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the meager record it was held that a designation of "Ten percent” was a sufficient designation. Reap. Dec. 4710 cited. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 46178.

#### Petition 6142-R of Roger & Gallet (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

The question in this case is whether a 12 percent French luxury tax should be included in the dutiable value of merchandise imported from France. From the record and in view of various decisions of the Customs Court and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, which finally decided adversely to the importer in *Roger & Gallet*v. *United States*(24 C. C. P. A. 46, T. D. 48331), the court was satisfied that the petitioners acted in good faith and that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned on final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, to conceal or misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 54087.

#### Berolio Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 148157-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MedAssets, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ John A. Bardis

John A. Bardis
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Wesley McClean et al., Plaintiffs, v Harry Poulikidis et al., Appellants, and TDP Leasing Corp., Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 1005]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Harry Poulikidis and Harris Home Design appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated June 21,1994, which granted that branch of the defendant TDP Leasing Corp.’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cross claim for recovery of counsel fees and costs incurred in the defense of the action, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated January 4, 1995, which is in favor of the defendant TDP Leasing Corp. and against them in the principal sum of $37,262.59.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the order is vacated, and that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of counsel fees and costs is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plain meaning of the lease at issue provided that the defendants Harry Poulikidis and Harris Home Design would only indemnify the defendant TDP Leasing Corp. (hereinafter TDP) for counsel fees if TDP were held to be responsible to pay another person. Since there has been no such finding, the award of counsel fees to TDP was premature, and questions of fact remain on the issue of indemnification. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
No. 46711.

#### Protests 972370-G, etc., of F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protests were sustained to that extent.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No
. 02

- 19

- 00064

- CV

___________________________

O n Appeal from the 348 th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 348

- 264569

- 13
B efore Pittman, Birdwell and Bassel, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### S IMONE 

### B ARRON 

### AND W AHID 

### J. Y AMMINE 

### AND W ALID 

### Y AMMINE 

### , Appellants
V 

### . I SSAM 

### A L 

### S HMAISANI AND 

### S HARON 

### S MITH 

### , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM O PINION We have considered appellant Wahid J. Yammine’s “Notice of Withdrawal of Notice o f Appeal,” which we treat as a motion to dismiss his appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal of Wahid J. Yammine only. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), (b), 43.2(f). The case shall hereafter b e styled “ Simone Barron and Walid Yammine v. Issam A l S hmaisani and S haron S mith.” Wahid J . Yammine shall p ay a ll c osts o f his appeal, for w hich l et execution issue. See Tex. R
. A pp. P
. 4 2.1(d), 4 3.4.

P er Curiam Delivered: June 20, 2019
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form10-Q/A,  for the quarterended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Jeffrey Johnson, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, asof , and for, the periods presented in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-Q/Apursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 202 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q/A for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 
| December 26, 2006 | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson  |   |
|------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                   | S. Jeffrey Johnson      |   |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
IN IT I AL REVI E W E NG I NEE R I NG RE PORT PMN : 15

- 0 1 36

Focu s R eady Draf t 1 / 15 /20 1 4SA T (concerns) (12/23/2014) : Re l ated Ana l ogs : Migra t i
PB T ra ti ng : P3B 1T 1 H

ea l th : 1

- 2 Inhalat i on, XB Testing (Test i ng d e si re d)
E co : 1 No releases to water

OCCUPAT I ONAL EXPOSURE RA T I NG : 1A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPT I ONS :

### IN IT I AL REVI E W E NG I NEER I NG REPORT

### IN IT I AL REVI E W E NG I NEER I NG REPORT
#### John Asselta, Respondent, v Eileen Asselta, Also Known as Eileen Sheehan, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 390]

—In an *395action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated December 9, 1993, which, *inter alia,*(a) limited her maintenance award to only $125 per week for seven years, (b) limited her visitation with her children to Sundays, and (c) failed to award her attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We discern no error in the court limiting the defendant’s maintenance award to $125 per week for seven years, inasmuch as the court properly weighed the necessary factors, especially that of the plaintiffs limited financial means resulting from the expenses attendant to his support of the parties’ three children *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; *Majauskas v Majauskas,*61 NY2d 481; *Loeb v Loeb,*186 AD2d 174). In addition, the court correctly concluded that the best interests of the children would be served by limiting the defendant’s visitation rights to Sundays *(see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89; *McDonald v McDonald,*216 AD2d 276; *John v John,*214 AD2d 536). Finally, the court properly declined to award the defendant counsel fees in light of the plaintiffs "precarious financial condition” *(Anderson v Anderson,*153 AD2d 823, 825; Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]). Thompson, J. P., Joy, Gold-stein and Florio, JJ., concur.
EX-32.2



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



INFe- HUMAN RESOURCES, INC. 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 amended quarterly report of INFe- Human Resources, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,  John Rudy, Chief Financial Officer of INFe- Human Resources, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Amended 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 Amende Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of INFe-Human Resources, Inc.



/s/     John Rudy

- --------------------

John Rudy

Chief Financial Officer

April 22, 2008