alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2


                            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 Annual Report of Fundtech Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yoram Bibring, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  May 27, 2005

                                    /s/ Yoram Bibring
                                    ------------------------------
                                    Yoram Bibring
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fundtech Ltd. and will be retained by Fundtech Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(Reap. Dec. 9030)

Entry No. 5079; 8011; 8410.

#### John A. Steer Co. *v.*United States

(Decided December 11, 1957)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

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

LawRence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain bicycles.

By stipulation of the parties, it has been agreed that said articles were appraised on the basis of statutory cost of production. It was further stipulated and agreed that the cost of materials and fabrication, manipulation, or other process employed in manufacturing or producing such or similar merchandise at a time preceding the date of exportation of the involved merchandise which would ordinarily permit the manufacture or production thereof in the usual course of business, plus the usual general expenses (not less than 10 per centum of such cost) in the case of such or similar merchandise, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and plus an addition for profit (not less than 8 per centum of the costs of materials and fabrication or manipulation and general expenses), equal to the profit which ordinarily is added to the cost of merchandise of the same general character by manufacturers or producers in the country of manufacture who are engaged in the manufacture of merchandise of the same class or kind equals — ■

> For items marked “A,” $22.04 each, less inland freight to Philadelphia;

> For items marked “B,” $20.70 each, less inland trucking;

> For items marked “C,” $19.60 each, plus packing.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the bicycles in issue and that said value is as follows:

> For items marked “A,” $22.04 each, less inland freight to Philadelphia;

> For items marked “B,” $20.70 each, less inland trucking;

> For items marked “C,” $19.60 each, plus packing.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29


                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                      OF

                             ORBITTRAVEL.COM, INC.

                         _____________________________

          FIRST.  The name of this corporation shall be:

                             ORBITTRAVEL.COM, INC.

          SECOND. Its registered office in the State of Delaware is to be
located at 1013 Centre Road, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle,
19805, and its registered agent at such address is THE COMPANY CORPORATION.

          THIRD.  The purpose or purposes of the corporation shall be:

          To engage in any lawful act or activity for which corporations may be
organized under the General Corporation Law of Delaware.

          FOURTH. The total number of shares of stock which this corporation is
authorized to issue is:

Ten Thousand (10,000) shares of Common Stock with a par value of One Tenth of
One Cent (0.001) amounting to Ten Dollars ($10.00).

          FIFTH.  The name and mailing address of the incorporator is as
follows:

                   Kimberly Wright
                   The Company Corporation
                   1013 Centre Road
                   Wilmington, DE 19805

          SIXTH.   The Board of Directors shall have the power to adopt, amend
or repeal the by-laws.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The undersigned, being the incorporator
hereinbefore named, has executed, signed and acknowledged this certificate of
incorporation this sixth day of October, A.D. 1999.


                                                  /s/ Kimberly Wright
                                                  --------------------------
                                                  Kimberly Wright
                                                  Incorporator
(Reap. Dec. 9619)

#### Kussi & Feigl, Inc. Globe Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 722726-1, etc.

(Decided March 4, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson & CoTburn*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. '

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are limited to the following items and are abandoned in all other respects:

> 7177 Necklet

> 7177 B Bracelet

> BE Necklet

> BE Bracelet

> 7192 Necklet

> 7192 B Bracelet

> 3441 Bracelet

> 3413 Bracelet

> 3981B Necklet

> 3981 EB Bracelet

> 7223 E Necklet

> 7223 EB Bracelet

> *591IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as so limited the issues are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*Reappt. Dec. 8590 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States were the appraised unit values less 15.35% plus 1.01%.

In the cited case, the court held foreign value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise there under consideration, and that such statutory value did not include the so-called “French sole or unique tax.”

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is statutory foreign value, and hold that such value for the items in question is the appraised unit values, less 15.35 per centum, plus 1.01 per centum.

The appeals for reappraisement are dismissed as to all other merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 29, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, William M.
Rudolphsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 /s/ William M.
Rudolphsen
 William
M. Rudolphsen
 Chief
Financial Officer
 Dated:  April
1, 2008
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Walgreen Co. and will be retained by Walgreen Co. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Charles Lynch v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00668-CR

Trial court case number: 15-CR-3172

Trial court: 405th District Court of Galveston County

On October 23, 2018, the court issued an order, striking appellant’s Anders brief, granting 

appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, and abating the appeal for appointment of new counsel. 

A supplemental clerk’s record was filed on October 29, 2018, containing an appointment of 

counsel John Reed. 

Accordingly, we lift the abatement and reinstate the appeal. Appellant’s brief is due 30 

days from the date of this order. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Jennifer Caughey________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __November 1, 2018_____
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001054825
<NAME> ABERDEEN ACQUISITION CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   894
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5000000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       894
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00386-CV

In the Interest of C.S., A Child §

§

§

§

From the 97th District Court

of Montague County (2013-0521MCV)

April 23, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker__________________

 Justice Sue Walker
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCharacterization and Analysis of Aerosol Particle Retention and Re-aerosolization from Hook-and-Loop Fasteners on the International Space StationThe extensive use of hook and loop fasteners aboard the International Space Station warrants careful examination of its contribution to indoor air pollution, as its fine fibers catch aerosol particles then re-aerosolize them upon being pulled apart, often within the breathing zone of astronauts. This problem is expanded by the lack of gravity because airborne particles larger than 1 micrometer do not settle. Instead these aerosols remain in the air until removed by filtration. Aerosol inhalation can have negative health effects, ranging from acute symptoms to long-term consequences, depending on particle sizes, mass and material composition. This study characterizes the size distribution, number concentration, and mass concentration of re-aerosolized debris generated by hook and loop fasteners taken from the stray light cover of the Microgravity Science Glovebox in the U.S. Laboratory of the ISS to understand the extent of its impact on air quality. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), in conjunction with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) were also used to characterize the morphology and composition of the particles.Document ID20180007355Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBoyajian, Barbara*(California Univ. Los Angeles, CA, United States)*Meyer, Marit E.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 30, 2018Publication DateOctober 1, 2018Subject CategoryEnvironment PollutionMan/System Technology And Life SupportReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2018-219925GRC-E-DAA-TN50308E-19541Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 089407.01.22CONTRACT_GRANT: USRA 2017Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180007355.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
MEDIACOMM BROADCASTING SYSTEMS, INC.
                                d/b/a SHOPBIZ.COM






                                Exhibit No. 10.5
                              Employment Agreement
                                      with
                                 Don E. Montague
                             dated February 4, 2000


<PAGE>


MediaComm Broadcasting Systems, Inc.
------------------------------------

This Agreement, made on February 4, 2000, by and between MediaComm Broadcasting
Systems, Inc., (hereinafter "MBSI"), and Don E. Montague (hereinafter
"Employee"). This Agreement replaces any previous Agreements.

     1.   Employee Responsibility:

          A.   Employee is responsible for carrying out the duties as Chief
               Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Chief
               Accounting and Financial Officer of MBSI.

     2.   Compensation:

          A.   Employee agrees to serve without salary or other compensation for
               a term expiring on June 1, 2000.

          B.   Employee is not entitled to participate in employee benefit plans
               maintained by MBSI, including insurance, stock option and profit
               sharing plans.

          C.   This contract is not renewable by Employee.

     3.   Termination:

          A.   No Compensation upon termination:

               i.   Voluntary termination (Employee resignation) - No salary
                    will be paid to Employee up to and including the last day of
                    employment.

               ii.  Involuntary termination (Employee fired by MBSI) - No salary
                    will be paid to Employee up to and including the last day of
                    employment.

          B.   Company property - Upon termination all MBSI materials and
               property will be returned by Employee to MBSI

          C.   Company clientele: Employee agrees that, if terminated
               (voluntarily or involuntarily), Employee will not, for a period
               of three months, call upon any client of MBSI.

In witness whereof, the parties below have executed this Agreement in Denver,
Colorado, on the date indicated above.

Employee

/s/                                         February 4, 2000
----------------------------                ----------------
Don E. Montague    Signature                Date

MBSI

/s/                                         February 4, 2000
----------------------------                ----------------
Steven S. Montague Signature                Date
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 346 

Expressing the sense of Congress that American oil companies should build 

additional refining capacity on existing refinery campuses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2008 

Mr. ALEXANDER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that American oil companies should build additional refining capacity on existing 

refinery campuses. 

Whereas gasoline prices are currently approaching $4.00 per 

gallon in the United States; 

Whereas there is a known shortage of refinery capacity in the 

United States and we are unable to process enough supply of gasoline to meet the Nation’s demand; 

Whereas the United States is forced to import over 

10,000,000 barrels of crude oil each day; 

Whereas crude oil prices are currently at $120 per barrel 

with no drop in that price in the foreseeable future; 

Whereas the profits of American oil companies are reaching 

record highs; 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 346 IH 

Whereas no new refineries have been built in the United 

States since 1976 and over 170 refineries have stopped 

operation since then; 

Whereas a stable, steady oil supply and United States refining capacity is a national security issue; and 

Whereas current refinery capacity is stretched to its limits: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Amer3 ican oil companies should reinvest their profits into build4 ing additional refining capacity on existing refinery cam5 puses so that the United States will become independent 

6 of foreign refineries and, in effect, to help to reduce the 

7 current high price of gasoline. 

Æ 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 179 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2007 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of 

Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment 

of the Senate. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, June 28, 2007, or Friday, June 29, 

4 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent res5 olution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 

6 adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, or until 

7 the time of any reassembly pursuant to 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

HCON 179 RDS 

1 section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 

2 first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on 

3 Friday, June 29, 2007, Saturday, June 30, 2007, Sunday, 

4 July 1, 2007, or Monday, July 2, 2007, on a motion of5 fered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Major6 ity Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned 

7 until noon on Monday, July 9, 2007, or such other time 

8 on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader 

9 or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until 

10 the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 

11 concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

12 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority 

13 Leader of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting 

14 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

15 House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify 

16 the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, 

17 to reassemble at such place and time as they may des18 ignate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant 

19 it. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 28, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerrod BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-15348

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket No. 04-00111-CR-4.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 30, 2005.

Susan L. Brach, Hilton Head, SC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Amy Lee Copeland, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Susan L. Brach, appointed counsel for Jerrod Brown in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Brown’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.