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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Memry Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2003 (the Report), I, Robert P. Belcher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



|/s/ Robert P. Belcher   
|------------------------
|Robert P. Belcher       
|Chief Financial Officer 
|                        
|Date: September 29, 2003



This certification is
made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
# C_2014388EN.01001002.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 — Nuna International v OHIM — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuna)

(Case T-195/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark nuna - Earlier Community word marks NANA and NANU-NANA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 388/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nuna International BV (Erp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Alpera Plazas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2012 (Case R 476/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Nuna International BV.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 February 2012 (Case R 476/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Nuna International BV, as regards the ‘strollers; buggies; safety car seats for children’ in Class 12 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘baby walkers’ and ‘sleeping bags for baby and children’ in Class 20; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 February 2012 (Case R 476/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG and Nuna International BV, as regards the ‘strollers; buggies; safety car seats for children’ in Class 12 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘baby walkers’ and ‘sleeping bags for baby and children’ in Class 20;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          28,971
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  415,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,804
<INVENTORY>                                    358,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               850,971
<PP&E>                                         455,288
<DEPRECIATION>                                 184,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,396,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          372,927
<BONDS>                                        306,279
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,316
<OTHER-SE>                                     429,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,396,033
<SALES>                                      1,563,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,563,144
<CGS>                                        1,014,612
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,014,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               331,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,612
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,973
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                192,518
<INCOME-TAX>                                    50,650
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            102,351
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   102,351
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.55
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital Lease Funding, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shawn
      P. Seale, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.








/s/ SHAWN
      P.
      SEALE


Shawn
      P.
      Seale


Senior
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


March
      7,
      2007








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Capital Lease Funding, Inc. and will be
      retained by Capital Lease Funding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
R I C HA RD G OM E Z, Ap pe lla nt,
v. THE OF FI CE OF TH E ATTORNEY GENE RA LOF TE XA S, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 02 94 -C V

Appea l from the 383rd Judi cial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2002CM7903)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Richard Gome z attempts t o appea l from the trial c ourt’s rulingholding him in contempt of cour t, and sentenc ing him to 90 day s imprisonment. Finding that the trial court ha s not enter ed a f

inal, appea lable orde r in this case, w e dismiss the appea l for lac k of jurisdiction. The trial c ourt held Mr. Gome z in contempt on S eptember 23, 2008. Mr. Gomez filed a notice of a

ppeal on Oc tober 2, 2008. The re is no re cord that a final, a ppeala ble orde r has be en e nte re d b y

the tr ia l c ourt . Appellate c ourts g ener ally have jur isdiction over final judg ments, and such inter locutory order s as the L eg islature dee ms appea lable. SeeT EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 51.012 and § 5 1. 01 4 ( Ve rn on

20 08 ); Ru iz v . R uiz , 946 S.W .2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1997, no pet.)
. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a c ontempt order on dir ect a ppeal. See Vernon v. Vernon , 2 25 S.W. 3d

17 9, 18 0 ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so 20 05 , n o p e t.) . G ive n th e a bs e nc e of a fi na l, appea lable orde r in this case, w e dismiss the appea l for lac k of jurisdiction.-2-

November

6, 2008 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ.
# C_2014282EN.01001601.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-377/13) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Tribunal Arbitral Tributário - Directive 69/335/EEC - Articles 4 and 7 - Increase of the share capital of a capital company - Stamp duty in force on 1 July 1984 - That stamp duty subsequently abolished, and then re-introduced))

2014/C 282/21

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta, SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4(1)(c) and 7(1) and (2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as precluding the reintroduction by a Member State of capital duty on increases of share capital of a company falling under the first of those provisions, which were subject to such duty on 1 July 1984, but which were later exempted from that duty.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

1

---
December 12, 1957

Reap. Dec. 9036.

#### *Charles Garcia & Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.
No. 42031.

#### Protest 978307-G of Herman Plaut (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

The protest was submitted without the introduction of any evidence. On the record presented it was overruled.
#### Gordon Arthur Smith, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7869.

Entry No. 176-A, etc.

(Decided August 23, 1950)

*Martin, Hastings, Snyder and Rockwell*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special' attorney), for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeals fisted in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted upon a stipulation to the effect that at the date of the exportation of the merchandise in*402volved herein, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale 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, for exportation to the United States at the prices set forth in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a pant hereof, and that there were no higher foreign values for the involved merchandise.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper dutiable export values for the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the values set forth in said schedule “B.” Judgment will be rendered accordingly.



*403
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9611]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated January 23, 2007, and published in the Federal 
Register on January 30, 2007, (72 FR 4296), American Radiolabeled 
Chemical, Inc., 101 Arc Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63146, made 
application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed in schedule I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-[1-(2-Thienyl) cyclohexyl] piperidine;     I
 TCP (7470).
Normorphine (9313).........................  I
Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage form)   II
 (9273).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed 
controlled substances as radiolabeled compounds for biochemical 
research.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
American Radiolabeled Chemical, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic 
class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at 
this time. DEA has investigated American Radiolabeled Chemical, Inc. to 
ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public 
interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the 
company's physical security systems, verification of the company's 
compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's 
background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in 
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed.

    Dated: May 14, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-9611 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
No. 6036.

#### SAMUEL D. PETERS vs. VIOLA LAROQUE TURGEAU, WIFE OF E. E. RANDALL.

Syllabus.

Novation is never presumed. Consequently in the absence of proof of an intention or agreement to vacate, the taking of a note will not be held to novate the debt.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of ' Orleans, Division “C,” No. 101,837. Hon. E. K. Skinner, Judge.

S. D. Peters, H. L. Garland and Charles Louque, for ap- . pellant.

Lyle Saxon, for appellee.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

*198Opinion and decree, March 23, 1914.

In the matter entitled Samuel D. Peters vs. Viola L. Turgeau, Wife of Elmer E. Ransdall, No. 5615 of our docket, decided June 18th, 1912 (9 Ct. of App., 355), we held that the present defendant was not liable upon a note which she had executed in favor of her attorney for services rendered to her in procuring a divorce from her husband; but we reserved to plaintiff, to whom the attorney had negotiated the note, the right if any existed, to sue upon a quantum meruit.

The present suit, instituted in conformity with that reservation, was met by several pleas or exceptions, one of which,'namely, that of res adjudicata, was sustained and the proceeding dismissed, the trial Court holding that the taking of the note novated the claim for services and that'consequently our prior judgment in the suit upon the note was a bar to the present action.

As there is nothing in the record to show an intention to novate the taking of the note merely changed the evidence and not the character of the debt. Novation is never presumed, and the Courts have consistently held that, in the absence of proof of an intention or agreement to novate, the mere taking of a note will not novate the debt.

Adler vs. Burton Lumber Co., 46 An., 379; Hughes vs. Mattas, 104 La., 218.

The judgment is accordingly reversed and set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the views herein expressed and according to law, the defendant to pay the costs of appeal and those of the trial Court to await the final determination of the cause.

Reversed and remanded.
# C_2014395EN.01001502.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-211/13) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 63 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Taxation of inheritances and gifts - National legislation providing for a higher tax-free allowance where the deceased, at the time of death, the donor or beneficiary resided on the territory of the Member State - Subject-matter of the action for annulment - Restriction - Justification))

(2014/C 395/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Wiedmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only a low tax-free allowance is granted when inheritance and gift tax are applied to immoveable property situated in Germany where the deceased, at the time of death, the donor, at the time of the gift, or the beneficiary, at the time of the taxable event, resided on the territory of another Member State, whereas a considerably higher tax-free allowance is granted where at least one of the two parties concerned resided in Germany at the relevant time, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1)

declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions under which only a low tax-free allowance is granted when inheritance and gift tax are applied to immoveable property situated in Germany where the deceased, at the time of death, the donor, at the time of the gift, or the beneficiary, at the time of the taxable event, resided on the territory of another Member State, whereas a considerably higher tax-free allowance is granted where at least one of the two parties concerned resided in Germany at the relevant time, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU;

| 2) | orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2)

orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

| 3) | orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

---
No. 47101.

#### Protests 38519-K, etc., of F. Blumenthal & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed between counsel that certain items in question consist of hemp knotted straw hats, not blocked or trimmed, and not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained. In accordance therewith the claim that they are dutiable at only 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained.
No. 6094.

#### BARTON, PARKER MFG. CO vs. M. ROSENSTOCK.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of fact.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, No. 1399. Hon. P. E. Edrington, Judge.

H. Kenner, for plaintiff and appellant.

John E. Fleury, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Plaintiff brought suit on an open -account and defendant answered claiming that the goods were not as represented and had been returned to plaintiff.

Nine months after this answer was filed the Cedar Rapides National Bank intervened as the holder of a promissory note which had been given.for the price of the goods but up to that time had not been mentioned in the pleadings.

The trial Judge rejected both the main demand and the intervention.

*265Opinion and decree, May 18th, 1914.

We - ourselves would by uo means be satisfied from defendant’s testimony alone that lie sent back the goods for -any better reason that that be found them unsalable ; but tbe very fact that nine months after an answer had been filed impeaching the quality of their merchandise, plaintiffs thought it advisable to bring in an alleged innocent note holder, evidently for the purpose of shutting off inquiry on that line, is a -circumstance strongly corroborative of defendant’s claims.

As to the intervenor, there is no proof that it acquired the note before maturity; and moreover, having elected to come into these proceedings and set up that the note “represented the purchase price of said goods,” and that plaintiff was “merely representing intervenor,” the latter occupies no better position than plaintiffs themselves.

Judgment affirmed.
(Reap. Dec. 9088)

#### H. W. Ebert Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 729241.

(Decided February 27, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

The merchandise involved in this appeal consists of wool sweaters imported from Japan and entered at the port of New York.

At the trial, counsel for the respective parties entered into the following stipulation:

> Me. Auster: The merchandise involved here consists of 50 dozen pullover sweaters invoiced at $25 per dozen, f. o. b. Japan, on designation of quality No. DW-42. And they were appraised at $36.07 per dozen net packed on the basis of export value. This merchandise is in fact quality ZW-42 and the correct appraised value, also on the basis of export value, should have been $25 per dozen, net packed, as invoiced.

> ij: ‡ ** * 'Jf*# #

> Judge Wilson: Are you willing to submit the case on the stipulation?

> Me. Langus: Yes, sir.

> Me. Auster: The Government submits.

On the agreed facts, I find 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 value is $25 per dozen, net packed, as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.