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

EXHIBIT 32. 1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Pan American Energy Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, ScottHoughton, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Date: July 28 , 2004 | /s/ Scott Houghton

_______________________    Scott Houghton, Chief Executive Officer |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 48933.

#### Protest 99738-K of Daniel F. Young, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

At the hearing there was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff and the court ordered the case submitted. The record failed to show any error in the action of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
(Reap. Dec. 9930)

#### American Express Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 961994.

(Decided March 1, 1961)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*'William H. Orricle, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a re-appraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

Rule 5(a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2

 

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

 

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of **FIRSTBINGO.COM INC.**(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Michael Kabin, Chief Executive 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:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 

Dated this 25th day of May, 2006.

 
MICHAEL KABIN 
Michael Kabin 
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                          INTRAOP MEDICAL CORPORATION

                           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 Quarterly Report of Intraop Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, JK
Hullett, 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:

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

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


                                          /s/   JK Hullett
                                        --------------------
                                          JK Hullett
                                          Chief Financial Officer

                                          Date:  February 12, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intraop Medical Corporation and will be retained by Intraop Medical
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Note to Docket 

Subject: Meeting with the Revere Smelting and Refining (RSR) Corporation 

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC 

Date: December 20, 2010 

Participants: Chuck French, EPA 

Nathan Topham, EPA 

Mia South, EPA 

Homer Hine, RSR 

Michael Buckantz, RSR 

Christopher Bryant, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. 

Mike Burr, ERG 

Donna Lazzari, ERG 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met with representatives of the Revere 

Smelting and Refining (RSR) Corporation. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the 

control technologies implemented at three facilities owned by RSR and also to discuss the 

ongoing Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for the secondary lead smelting source category. 

A brief summary of the key points is outlined below. 

• RSR informed EPA that two of their facilities in Indiana and New York have 

plans to install a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP). 

• RSR explained the major fugitive emissions control practices employed at their 

facility to EPA. These include total negative pressure enclosures, ambient lead 

monitoring, and installation of the WESP and an automatic rooftop sprinkler 

system at the City of Industry facility. RSR claims that total enclosures are the 

best and most important fugitive control practice. 

• EPA asked RSR the motivation behind installing a regenerative thermal oxidizer 

(RTO) at their City of Industry facility. RSR explained that the RTO was 

installed in response to odor complaints from RSR’s neighbors and that RSR was 

not in danger of exceeding the total hydrocarbons (THC) emissions limits in the 

NESHAP. 

• RSR explained that all of their facilities implement “Gore on Gore” bags, which 

they claim to be the most efficient for primary loads. RSR also explained that 

they never repair bags once a problem is detected, they replace them. 

• RSR discussed their plans to replace the refinery baghouse at the City of Industry 

facility.
**Exhibit 31.1**CertificationsI, Suki Mudan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB/A-2 for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2006, of Caneum, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:September 27, 2007   /s/ Suki Mudan Suki Mudan, President  (Principal Executive Officer)  
 
36
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.14

|      |  |                 
|----- |  | ----------------
|TO:   |  | Hugh Foley      
|      |  |                 
|FROM: |  | Charles McNew   
|      |  |                 
|DATE: |  | January 17, 2003
|      |  |                 
|RE:   |  | Severance       

The following termination/separation arrangements are being extended to you in
the event of your separation from the Company.

In the event your employment is terminated without cause, the Company will
continue to pay your salary for six (6) months from the date of termination.
If you decide to leave Halifax or your employment is terminated for cause, you
will be paid your salary and any earned incentive compensation up to the last
day of employment.

Cause as used above is defined as:

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|A good faith finding by the Company of your failure to perform the duties
reasonably assigned to you; dishonesty, gross negligence or misconduct, or
your conviction, or your entry of a pleading of guilty or nolo contrendre,
to any
crime involving moral turpitude or any felony.
Before the First Division,

October 31, 1941

No. 46521.

#### Protest 18187-K of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 41823 the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 (e) was sustained.
### Served: March 1, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THEMATTER OF CENTRAL VIRGINIAAVIATION FAADOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0044 

### NOTICE OFASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as CaseNo. 2012EA210031)has been assigned to AdministrativeLawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served ontheJudge, the FAAHearingDocket, andthe other persons onthe attached ServiceList.

Attachment- ServiceList R/ nnie A. 

### Yoder ChiefAdministrativeLawSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 David H. Gates, Respondent's Counsel Cowan Gates

1930 Huguenot Rd. P.O. Box 35655 Richmond, VA 23235 TEL: 804-320-9100 FAJ<: 804-320-2900

ONE COPY· Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel

Eastem Region Federal Aviation Administration 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAJ<: 718-995-5699 Judge J.E. Sullivan

U.S. Administratiye Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-20

U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 F AU<: 202-366-7536

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0044 (Civil Penalty Action) 1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. -2-
# C_2013141EN.01001401.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 11 February 2013 — Gmina Wrocław v Minister Finansów

(Case C-72/13)

2013/C 141/23

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gmina Wrocław

Appellant:

Respondent: Minister Finansów

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) preclude the imposition of VAT on the activities of a municipality consisting in the sale or the contribution to commercial companies of property, including immovable property, acquired by operation of law or without consideration, in particular by inheritance or gift?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2015236EN.01000701.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA

(Case C-516/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4(1) - Distribution right - Concept of ‘distribution to the public’ - Offer for sale and advertising by a trader of a Member State on its website, by direct mail and in the press in another Member State - Reproductions of protected furniture for sale without the consent of the holder of the exclusive distribution right - Offer or advertising not leading to the purchase of the original or copies of a protected work))

(2015/C 236/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca

Applicants:

Defendant: Knoll International SpA

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a holder of an exclusive right to distribute a protected work to prevent an offer for sale or a targeted advertisement of the original or a copy of that work, even if it is not established that that advertisement gave rise to the purchase of the protected work by an EU buyer, in so far as that advertisement invites consumers of the Member State in which that work is protected by copyright to purchase it.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND SEPTEMBER  30, 1997,  AND THE  STATEMENTS OF
OPERATION AND THE  STATEMENTS  OF CASH FLOW FOR THE THREE YEARS ENDED  SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL  REPORT ON
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,351,542
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,037,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                   143,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,393,708
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,524,178
<PP&E>                                       2,044,421
<DEPRECIATION>                                 801,405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,325,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,530,723
<BONDS>                                        214,792
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,206
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,404,883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,325,479
<SALES>                                     16,213,904
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,213,904
<CGS>                                       12,069,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,069,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,198
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (849,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (260,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (589,887)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (589,887)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9951)

#### Ruhr Industries *v.*United States

Entry No. 977961.

(Decided March 15, 1961)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*William H. OrrieJc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*637LawkeNCE, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

Buie 5(a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  (1)
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Non-Invasive Monitoring Systems, Inc.;(2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report.
 By:
    
    /s/ Marvin A. Sackner, M.D.

Marvin A. Sackner, M.D.Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)November 29, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 3.2

                         CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO
                       CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                     OF
                                  XCEED INC.


     Xceed Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY:

     1.  The name of the Corporation is Xceed Inc. and the date of filing of
its original Certificate of Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the
State of Delaware was December 17, 1997.

     2.  That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation
resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the
Certificate of Incorporation of said Corporation, declaring said amendments
to be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of said Corporation
for consideration thereof.  The resolution setting forth the proposed
amendment is as follows:

         RESOLVED, That the Article First of the Certificate of Incorporation of
the Corporation be amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:

         "FIRST:  The name of the Corporation is:

                  Worldwide Xceed Group, Inc."

     3.  That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, a
special meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation was duly called and
held, upon notice and otherwise in accordance with Section 211 and Section
222 of the General Corporation Law, on October 5, 2000, at which meeting the
necessary number of shares as required were voted to approve said amendment.

     4.  The amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation herein certified
has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officer this 7th day of November 2000.

                                       XCEED INC.


                                       By: /s/ Richard R. Dennerline
                                          -------------------------------
                                             Richard R. Dennerline,
                                             Secretary