alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2





                                   CERTIFICATE
                                 furnished under
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

     I, Warner L. Baxter,  chief  financial  officer of Union Electric  Company,
hereby  certify that to the best of my  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Report of
Union  Electric  Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and  that  information  contained  in such  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Union Electric Company.



                                                  /s/ Warner L. Baxter
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Warner L. Baxter
                                                  Senior Vice President, Finance
                                                  (Principal Financial Officer)

Date:  May 14, 2003



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Union  Electric  Company  and will be  retained  by Union  Electric
Company and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff
upon request.
# C_2016454EN.01001301.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/13

---

Order of the Court of 21 September 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova — Romania) — Rodica Popescu v Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj

(Case C-614/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Veterinary assistant in the veterinary health inspection sector - Public sector - Clause 5(1) - Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the use of such contracts - Replacements for vacant posts pending completion of competition procedures))

(2016/C 454/25)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Craiova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rodica Popescu

Defendant: Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj

Operative part of the order

Clause 5(1) of the of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts, in the public sector, is deemed justified by ‘objective reasons’ within the meaning of that clause on the sole ground that inspections performed by staff employed in the veterinary health sector are non-permanent in nature due to the variations in volume of the activities of the establishments to be inspected, unless the renewal of those contracts is actually aimed at covering a specific need in the relevant sector, without the underlying reason being budgetary considerations, which it is for the national court to verify. Moreover, the fact that the renewal of successive fixed-term contracts is done pending completion of competition procedures does not make those rules compliant with that clause where the actual application thereof leads, in reality, to abusive recourse to successive fixed-term employment contracts, which it is also for the national court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7129
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LINO H. HAYNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM) Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: July 14, 2008 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lino H. Haynes, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lino H. Haynes appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion and denying reconsideration of its May 11, 2004 order granting in part and denying in part his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Haynes , No. 2:90-cr-00105-HCM (E.D. Va. filed July 9, 2007; entered July 12, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Homero NAVA-CORREA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50299.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 19, 2005.

Tracy L. Wilkison, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James H. Locklin, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Homero Nava-Correa appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawfully entering the United States after having been previously deported in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2).

Nava-Correa contends that the district court erred in applying the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory when imposing his sentence. Because Nava-Correa was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the district court to answer that *879question, and to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 915 (9th Cir.2005) (extending *Ameline’s*limited remand procedure to cases involving non-constitutional *Booker*error).

On remand we also direct the district court to correct the judgment to exclude the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.2000).

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2016007EN.01003801.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/38

---

Action brought on 29 October 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-136/15)

(2016/C 007/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment, firstly, of the Parliament’s decision to put the applicant’s situation into order as regards the allocation of the education allowance and, secondly, of the decision to recover the amounts which the applicant unduly received in that regard.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the claim;

| — | Order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---
No. 46335.

#### Protests 817514-G, etc., of Polan Katz & Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the merchandise consists of waterproof cloth in chief value of cotton the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Caesar*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 455, C. D. 515). The protests were therefore sustained as stipulated, in accordance with the dates of entry or withdrawal from warehouse.
(Reap. Dec. 9411)

#### Henry Greenberg & Bros. Export & Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. W-17806; W-57656.

(Decided April 29,1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran JDonb,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeals for a reappraisement were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official records discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Alberto Hernandez *v.*United States

No. 7435.

Pro forma invoice dated December 27, 1944.

Entered at Tampa, Fla., December 27, 1944.

Entry No. 557.

(Decided November 14, 1947)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Arthur R. Martoccia,*special attorney); for the defendant.

*308Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of certain brooms imported from Cuba on December 19, 1944. The merchandise was entered and appraised as follows:

> *Entered Appraised*

> 6 string household brooms_ $5.90 per doz_$6.50 per doz.

> 6 string warehouse brooms_ $7.00 per doz_$7.50 per doz.

> Whisk brooms_ $2.04 per doz_$3.00 per doz.

> Plus 2.75% tax. Net packed

At the trial, Alberto Hernandez appeared in his own behalf and testified that he had contracted for the merchandise at the prices at which he entered it, although he did not have any bill of lading or consular invoice to substantiate the price; that he had contracted to buy the 6-string special or warehouse brooms at $7 per dozen, the 6-string regular or household brooms at $5.90 per dozen, and the whisk brooms at 17 cents each; that those were the advertised sched-. ule prices; that he actually paid $7.50 per dozen for the 6-string special brooms, $6.50 per dozen for the 6-string regular brooms, and $3 per dozen for the whisk brooms. The prices listed in the pro forma invoice are those which plaintiff stated he had contracted to pay and those listed in the consular invoice are those which plaintiff stated he actually paid.

There is nothing in this record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the appraiser’s valuation of the merchandise. I find, therefore, that the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such values are the appraised values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 46941.

#### Protest 75114-K of Weiss Fwdg. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wire cloth similar to that the subject of *Paper Mill Equipment, Ltd.*v. *United States*(7 Cust. Ct. 25, C. D. 526), it was held dutiable under the provision in paragraph 372 for machines or parts for making paper pulp or paper, not specially provided for, wholly or in chief value of metal or porcelain, at 20 percent under paragraph 372 by virtue of the trade agreement with Sweden (T. D. 47785). The protest was sustained.
No. 40388.

#### Protest 938817-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of novelties in chief value of fur, not toys. The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 (e) was therefore sustained. Abstract 36368 followed.
EXHIBIT 31.2


I, Christine R. Larson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Trinity Learning
     Corporation;

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:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)   disclosed in this report any change in internal control over financial
          reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
          quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
          materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
          reporting;

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 registrant's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.


Date: October 28, 2004

      /S/ CHRISTINE R. LARSON
      -----------------------

      Christine R. Larson
      Chief Financial Officer
No. 53751.

protest 150586-K (New York).

#### Fuchs Shoe Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 49412.

#### Protest 967719-G of W. X. Huber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

At the hearing the importer stated that the merchandise consists of six pieces or rugs measuring variously from 3 by 100 feet to 12 by 100 feet and that he purchased it in Japan and saw it after its arrival here. He produced an illustrative sample measuring 1 foot square but admitted it did not come out of the importation in question. It was agreed it was in chief value of cotton. An examination of the exhibit showed it to be a rather thick, tightly woven fabric of heavy cotton yarns, entirely white, and without any design or color on either side, both sides appearing to be woven alike and therefore undoubtedly usable as floor coverings on both sides. The testimony of the witness was quite in accord with this. Counsel for the plaintiff referred to Abstract 45802 as supporting the claim that the rugs in question are of like character or description to ingrain rugs and therefore dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1117 (b). However, inasmuch as an inspection of illustrative exhibit 1 in the present instance showed it to be entirely different in appearance, weave, material, and character, from exhibit 1 covered by the decision in said Abstract 45802, the court felt the two were hardly comparable, the only similarity being that they arc apparently woven alike on both sides and can therefore be used as floor coverings on both sides. The court found it hard to imagine just where rugs of such large and peculiar sizes as shown on invoice are used, but was of the opinion that possibly these long lengths represent rugs in the piece, requiring only to be cut to specified lengths or widths, and then bound, to make them into separate rugs. However, the record furnished no information on this point, other than that the merchandise is used as floor coverings. The instant merchandise was found to be so far different from that the subject of Abstract 45802, and the testimony introduced by plaintiff failing to prove that the rugs under consideration are ingrain rugs, .or rugs of like character or descrip' tion within the purview of paragraph 1117 (b), the claim was overruled.
No. 50680.

#### Protests 40498-K, etc., of Foster Canning Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
# C_2019305EN.01003301.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Sony and Sony Electronics v Commission

(Case T-762/15) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for optical disk drives - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Collusive agreements relating to bidding events concerning optical disk drives for notebook and desktop computers - Infringement by object - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

(2019/C 305/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sony Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) and Sony Electronics (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, N. Levy and E. Kelly, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. Farley, A. Biolan, C. Giolito, F. van Schaik and L. Wildpanner, and subsequently by M. Farley, F. van Schaik, L. Wildpanner and A. Dawes, Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 7135 final of 21 October 2015 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39639 — Optical disk drives), or, in the alternative, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.

---
# C_2016191EN.01004603.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/46

---

Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — HK Intertrade v Council

(Case T-526/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 191/65)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a)
      and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
      of the undersigned officers of Canal Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries,
      a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

      The Quarterly  Report of Form 10-Q for the six months ended April 30, 2005
      (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the  requirements  of
      section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  and
      information  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material
      respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of the
      Company.


Date: June 14, 2005                                /S/ Michael E. Schultz
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


Date: June 14, 2005                                /S/ Reginald Schauder
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


                                       45
Before the First Division,

May 15, 1952

No. 56672.

protests 173410-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bleyco Paper Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cellophane sheets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Coughlin Mfg. Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 40, C. D. 1345) and *Gillette Safety Razor Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 44, C. D. 1346), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.