alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Secured Data, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for
      the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, Sanding Tao, 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 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
      19, 2006




/S/
              Sanding
              TaoSanding
                Tao
              Chief
                Financial Officer
# C_2013063EN.01002203.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/22

---

Action brought on 17 December 2012 — RiskMetrics Solutions/OHIM (RISKMANAGER)

(Case T-557/12)

2013/C 63/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RiskMetrics Solutions LLC (New York, United States) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision in its entirety so that Community Trade Mark No 9 446 881 is accepted and proceeds through to publication; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in its entirety so that Community Trade Mark No 9 446 881 is accepted and proceeds through to publication;

| — | Order OHMI to pay the appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHMI to pay the appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RISKMANAGER’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 446 881

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
Case No. 10,103.

#### NELSON v. CARMAN.

[5 Blatch. 511; 16 Int. Rev. Rec. 181.]

Circuit Court, E. D. New York.

Nov. 12, 1867.

Taxes Illegally Assessed — Action for Money' Had and Received.

An action for money had and received is maintainable against a collector of internal revenue, for duties or taxes erroneouslv or illegally assessed and collected, when the payment" has been made under protest, and with notice of an intention to bring a suit to test the validity of the claim.

LC-ited in Greer v. Ferguson, DC Ark. 324, 19 S. W. 907.]

This tvas an action [by William Nelson] against [George T. Carman] an internal revenue collector, to recover back an income tax alleged to have been illegally imposed upon the plaintiff. The cause was tried before the court without a jury, and, the testimony being closed, the district attorney raised the objection, that the action would not lie against the collector, inasmuch as it appeared that the tax in question had been decided by the assessor, as well as by the commissioner, upon appeal, to be due, and had been inserted in the assessment list as due and payable by the plaintiff, and had been collected in pursuance of the assessment list and paid into the treasury.

1

 [Reported by Hon. Samuel Blntcliford. District Judge, and here reprinted by permission.]

BENEDICT, District Judge.

The question raised by the district attorney, in this case, has been passed upon by the supreme court, in the case of City of Philadelphia v. Collector, 5 Wall. [72 U. S.] 720, and it must now be considered as settled, that an action for .money had and received is maintainable against a collector., for duties or taxes erroneously or illegally assessed and collected, when, as in the present case, the payment has been made under protest, and with notice of an intention to bring a suit to test the validity of the claim. The objection is, therefore, overruled, and the case must proceed upon the merits.
EXHIBIT 23.3

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Workflow Management, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
on Form S-8 (333-57685) of Workflow Management, Inc. of our report dated
August 28, 1996 with respect to the balance sheet of Hano Document Printers,
Inc. as of December 31, 1995, and the related statements of income,
stockholder's equity, and cash flows for the year then ended which report
appears in the April 25, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Workflow
Management, Inc.

/s/KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
------------------------
Norfolk, Virginia
July 20, 1998
#### Ana Vassilakos, Respondent, v Peter Vassilakos, Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 947]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, the imposition of sanctions of $3,500 against defendant’s attorney as a condition of relieving defendant from his default is warranted and is an appropriate exercise of Supreme Court’s discretion *(see, Folk v State of New York,*185 AD2d 267, 268; *Sasson v Sasson,*134 AD2d 491, 492; *Gabrelian v Gabrelian,*108 AD2d 445, 447-448, *appeal dismissed*66 NY2d 741). The challenge to the propriety of the order striking defendant’s answer is not properly before us because defendant did not appeal from that order *(see,*CPLR 5515 [1]; *see also, Hecht v City of New York,*60 NY2d 57, 61). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Rigler, J.—Sanctions.) Present —Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20265]



[[Page 41372]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Working Group A (Microwave Devices) of the DoD Advisory Group 
on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Wednesday, September 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research 
Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 
22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eric Carr, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal 
Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering 
(DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and the Military Departments in 
planning and managing an effective and economical research and 
development program in the area of electron devices.
    The Working Group A meeting will be limited to review of research 
and development programs which the Military Departments propose to 
initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. This 
microwave device area includes programs on developments and research 
related to microwave tubes, solid state microwave devices, electronic 
warfare devices, millimeter wave devices, and passive devices. The 
review will include details of classified defense programs throughout.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, (5 
U.S.C. App. Sec. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this 
Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be 
closed to the public.

    Dated: July 25, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-20265 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Michigan Supreme 

Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 14, 2015

Order 

April 14, 2015

150929 & (11)

THOMAS A. COLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

LAURIE A. COLE,

Defendant-Appellee.

SC: 150929

COA: 324947

Kalamazoo CC: 2008-007483-DO

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation to dismiss the application for leave to 

appeal is GRANTED. The dismissal is with prejudice and without costs to either party.
<PAGE>
                                   SCHEDULE 2

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     BALANCE                   CHARGE TO                BALANCE
                                                    BEGINNING    EFFECTS OF     COSTS/                   END OF
                                                    OF PERIOD   ACQUISITIONS    EXPENSE    DEDUCTIONS    PERIOD
                                                    ---------   ------------   ---------   ----------   --------
<S>                                      <C>        <C>         <C>            <C>         <C>          <C>
ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS

FLAG Limited...........................    1995      $   --          --             --            --     $   --

FLAG Limited...........................    1996      $   --          --             --            --     $   --

FLAG Limited...........................    1997      $   --          --          9,054            --     $9,054

FLAG Limited...........................    1998      $9,054          --          1,445        (1,869)    $8,630

FLAG Limited...........................    1999      $8,630          --             --        (1,803)    $6,827
</TABLE>
No. 40552.

#### Protests 801695-G/84877, etc., of W. A. Taylor Co., Inc., et al. (Chicago, etc.).

Opinion by First Division. Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400' the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Description: FY 1998 FDS for PRIMEDIA, Inc.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000884382
<NAME>                        PRIMEDIA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          24,538
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  284,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,303
<INVENTORY>                                     41,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               347,142
<PP&E>                                         283,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,041,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          581,187
<BONDS>                                      1,928,892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          557,841
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       984,154
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,064,893)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,041,074
<SALES>                                      1,573,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,573,573
<CGS>                                          367,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  367,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,087,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             144,442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (37,736)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (37,736)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (37,736)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.71)
        

</TABLE>
No. 96-1330.

#### Black *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari before judgment denied.
#### Commonwealth vs. Scott D. Gaumond.

No. 00-P-1426.

January 16, 2002.

*Practice, Criminal,*Sentence.

The defendant appeals from an order denying his motion under Mass.R. Crim.P. 29, 378 Mass. 899 (1979), to revise or revoke his sentence. He pleaded guilty to a charge of larceny from a person over sixty under G. L. c. 266, § 30, and received a sentence of from five to seven years at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Cedar Junction. On a related charge of larceny over $250 he was placed on probation for a period of five years from and after his term of incarceration. As grounds for his rule 29 motion he claims that he was coerced into agreeing to plead guilty during a conference with the sentencing judge. He also made numerous allegations that his rights were denied prior to his plea.

Upon conditions set forth therein, rule 29 authorizes revision or revocation of a sentence “if it appears that justice may not have been done.” Although the defendant prays that the court “reconsider the sentences imposed,” it is clear in his affidavit and memorandum filed in support of his motion, and from his brief on appeal, that he sought to withdraw his guilty plea for a • variety of reasons. He did not seek to revise his sentence on his guilty plea or to revoke the sentence imposed and to have a different sentence imposed.

Rule 29, by its terms, is not available for the defendant’s purpose. The purpose of the rule is to permit a judge to reconsider a sentence imposed and to determine, in the light of the facts as they existed at the time of the sentence, whether the sentence was just. *Commonwealth*v. *Sitko,*372 Mass. 305, 313-314 (1977). *Commonwealth*v. *Layne,*386 Mass. 291, 295 (1982). *Commonwealth*v. *Amirault,*415 Mass. 112, 117 (1993). See *Commonwealth*v. *Richards,*44 Mass. App. Ct. 478, 481-482 (1998).

The judge did not err in denying this motion.

*Order denying motion to revise or revoke sentence affirmed.*

*913
      *Scott D. Gaumond,*pro se.

*David R. Marks,*Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 27 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk June 27 , 2018

156240 (51)

HOME

- OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

AUTO

- OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

SC: 156240

v COA: 331934

Ingham CC: 15

- 000025

- CK

RICHARD JANKOWSKI and JANET

JANKOWSKI,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendants

- appellants to extend the time

for fi ling their supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted

as timely filed if submitted on or before August 3, 2018.
No. 43281.

Suit 4268.

#### L. *Oppleman, Inc.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 156 affirmed. C. A. D. 89.
# C_2015073EN.01000402.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank v L.F. Evans

(Case C-179/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Determination of the social security legislation applicable to a worker - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Applicability - Employment of a national of a Member State at the consulate of a third State in the territory of another Member State in whose territory he resides - Vienna Convention on consular relations - Article 71(2) - National legislation according facilities, privileges and immunities to permanent residents)

(2015/C 073/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Defendant: L.F. Evans

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, read in conjunction with Article 16 of that regulation, should be construed as meaning that, for the period during which a national of a Member State has been employed at a consular post of a third State within the territory of a Member State of which he is not a national but within whose territory he resides, that national is not subject to the legislation of a Member State within the meaning of this provision if, by virtue of the legislation of his Member State of residence, adopted pursuant to Article 71(2) of the Vienna Convention on consular relations, concluded at Vienna on 24 April 1963, he is not affiliated to the national social security scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

896 

CAF 14-01978 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT E. TROMBLEY, JR., 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KRISTIN S. PAYNE, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

KELIANN M. ARGY, ORCHARD PARK, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

FARES A. RUMI, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, ROCHESTER. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R.

Adams, J.), entered October 2, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family

Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, directed 

respondent to pay a fine for three separate events constituting civil

contempt. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs.

Same memorandum as in Matter of Trombley v Payne ([appeal No. 2]

___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 10, 2016]).

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 219 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 219

  To require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and 
                      reports in electronic form.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 27, 2011

 Mr. Tester (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Levin, Mrs. McCaskill, Mrs. 
Shaheen, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lugar, 
Mr. Cardin, Mr. Graham, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Begich) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                        Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and 
                      reports in electronic form.

    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 ``Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FILING BY SENATE CANDIDATES WITH COMMISSION.

    Section 302(g) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
U.S.C. 432(g)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(g) Filing With the Commission.--All designations, 
        statements, and reports required to be filed under this Act 
        shall be filed with the Commission.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Wimelbacher & Rice, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7765.

Entry No. 05771.

(Decided December 19, 1949)

*Brooks & Brooks (Frederick W. Brooks*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issue in the appeal for reappraisement listed above is the same in all material respects as the issue decided in C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States, R. D. 7624, and that the record in said ease may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in this case, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Tretch *v.*Greater Adelphi Building and Loan Association, Appellant.

Argued April 29, 1936.

Before Kephart, C. J., Schaefer, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.

*Emanuel Moss,*of *Moss & Moss,*for appellant.

*Frank, A. Simons,*with him *Bender & Rubin,*for appellee.

*Sylvan H. Hirsch,*Special Deputy Attorney General, with him *Herbert P. Sundheim,*Special Deputy Attorney General, and *Charles J. Margiotti,*Attorney General, for Secretary of Banking, Amicus Curiae.

June 26, 1936:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Drew,

In accordance with the stipulation and agreement of counsel that a similar judgment may be entered in the appeal of this case as is ordered in the case of *Gorges v. Greater Adelphi Building and Loan Association,*322 Pa. 569, the judgment of the Superior Court, affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, is reversed, and judgment is herein entered for defendant.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

30128

02-AUG-2013

12:44 PM
No. 46546.

#### Protests 29617-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 43372 the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.