alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 10-Q of Varian, Inc. for the period ended
March 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this certification (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Varian, Inc.



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 6, 2008                                          
|                                                            
|/s/ G. EDWARD
MCCLAMMY G. Edward McClammy                   
|Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



A signed original of this written
statement as required by Section 906 has been provided to Varian, Inc. and will be retained by Varian, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10325

Conference Calendar

 

JUANA OLGA ROMERO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF RICHARDSON; D MEYER; B RICHARDS;

FRIENDLY CHEVROLET COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-2189-G

- - - - - - - - - -

December 9, 1998

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juana Olga Romero appeals the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 suit under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a

claim for which relief can be granted. When the plaintiff

alleges that the defendant committed an unlawful arrest without a

warrant, she must show that the defendant did not have probable

cause to arrest, as is required by the Fourth Amendment. See

United States v. Walker, 960 F.2d 409, 416 (5th Cir. 1992)(direct

criminal appeal). “Probable cause exists when the facts and 
No. 98-10325

-2-

circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officer are

sufficient to cause a person of reasonable caution to believe

that an offense has been or is being committed.” Id. (citation

and internal quotation omitted).

Romero admits in her original complaint that the police had

a report that the vehicle she was driving was stolen and that she

did not own the vehicle. Under Texas law, this gave the police

officers probable cause to arrest her for theft or unauthorized

use of a vehicle. Because there was probable cause for the

arrest, Romero has not alleged any violation of her

constitutional rights. The decision of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, DC 20549 FORM N-PX ANNUAL REPORT OF PROXY VOTING RECORD OF DWS U.S. Treasury Money Fund Investment Company Act file number  811-3043 DWS U.S. Treasury Money Fund (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)  345 Park Avenue New York, NY  10154 (Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code) John Millette Secretary One Beacon Street Boston, MA  02108-3106 (Name and address of agent for service) Registrant's telephone number, including area code:617-295-1000 Date of fiscal year end:05/31 Date of reporting period:7/1/07-6/30/08 Form N-PX is to be used by a registered management investment company, other than a small business investment company registered on Form N-5 (§§ 239.24 and 274.5 of this chapter), to file reports with the Commission, not later than August 31 of each year, containing the registrant's proxy voting record for the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30, pursuant to section 30 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and rule 30b1-4 thereunder (17 CFR 270.30b1-4). The Commission may use the information provided on Form N-PX in its regulatory, disclosure review, inspection, and policymaking roles. A registrant is required to disclose the information specified by Form N-PX, and the Commission will make this information public. A registrant is not required to respond to the collection of information contained in Form N-PX unless the Form displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") control number. Please direct comments concerning the accuracy of the information collection burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing the burden to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. The OMB has reviewed this collection of information under the clearance requirements of 44 U.S.C. § 3507.  ******************************* FORM N-Px REPORT *******************************

ICA File Number: 811-03043
Reporting Period: 07/01/2007 - 06/30/2008
DWS U.S. Treasury Money Fund









======================= A   DWS U.S. TREASURY MONEY FUND =======================

NO PROXIES RECEIVED OR VOTED FOR THIS FUND

========== END NPX REPORT  
 SIGNATURES [See General Instruction F] Pursuant to the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. (Registrant)
        DWS U.S. Treasury Money Fund
  By (Signature and Title)*/s/Michael G. Clark Michael G. Clark, Chief Executive Officer
 Date8/15/08 * Print the name and title of each signing officer under his or her signature.
No. 00-816.

#### Montgomery County et al. *v.*Wright et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### WARNER AND SWASEY COMPANY, Appellant, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee.

No. 72-536.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 1, 1974.

Thomas B. Mimms,- Jr., of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tempa, for appellant.

John W. Boult and W. Donald Cox, of Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

The trial judge determined that defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute should be denied. There is no ascription of reason. The record of the hearing before the trial judge is not brought before us. The only justification for reversal of the trial judge’s decision is, therefore, that he was not authorized to treat the plaintiff’s objection to the motion as “good cause in writing” within the meaning of Rule 1.420, Fla.R.Civ.P., 30 F. S.A. The plaintiff “for good cause says that this cause is closely related to cause # 184433 on the docket of this Court and that activity has been conducted in cause # 184433 which advances this cause and interrogatories filed in this cause are identical and verbatim with interrogatories filed in cause # 184433, that the attorneys in both causes are the same and that cause # 184433 is not subject to dismissal and a Motion for Consolidation is filed herewith.”

We are unwilling to reverse a conscientious trial judge who had before him the same lawyers, representing the same type of claim, determining whether the non-record activity of these lawyers, known to both, was sufficient to warrant allowing the case to remain on the active docket. It is entirely possible — the presumption of correctness requires us to assume — that there was adduced on that occasion sufficient indication, conceivably by way of admission, that these causes had indeed progressed through activity known to both sides but not recorded in this case.

To find fault with a minimal, but sufficient, assertion of good cause, not attacked in the trial court as insufficient and not shown of record here to be unproved is a departure from the responsibility of an appellate tribunal. We cannot invite counsel *46to lay low in the trial court, and if matters take an adverse course, to come here with no record of what the trial judge heard and sandbag the opposition.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, J., and PIERCE, J. (Retired), concur.
Sierra Club Supporting Modeling Files available upon request.
AMENDMENT
#1


TO
THE EQUITY AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment No. 1, dated January 4, 2018 (this “Amendment”), is by and between Blink Charging Co., a Nevada corporation
(the “Company”) and Ira Feintuch (“Feintuch”) (referred to collectively herein as the “Parties”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and Feintuch entered into an Equity Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of December 7, 2017. All
capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Company and Feintuch agree as follows:


 


1.
Extension of Expiration of this Agreement. The sentence in the Agreement that commences with “If the Offering does
not close by 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time...” shall be amended and replaced in its entirety with the following:


 


“If
the Offering does not close by 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on February 14, 2018, this Agreement shall expire.”


 


ALL
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.


 


Please
indicate acceptance and approval of this Amendment by signing below:


 





	BLINK
    CHARGING CO.	 	IRA
    FEINTUCH
	 /s/
    Michael J. Calise  	 	 /s/
    Ira Feintuch 
	Michael J. Calise,
    Chief Executive Officer
@Q Eastern Federal Lands 21400 Ridgetop Circle

is ivisi Sterling, VA 20166-6511
US.Department Highway Division erling,

of Transportation

Federal Highway
Administration

MAY -9 2013 In Reply Refer to: HFPP-15

Mr. Richard A. Davey

Secretary

Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160

Boston, MA 02116

Subject: _MAP-21 Access Program Programming Decisions Committee Members
Dear Mr. Davey:

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21* Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141,
includes the establishment of the new Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). This new
program will be administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Federal
Lands Highway. Massachusetts is served by the Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division
(EFLHD) office in Sterling, Virginia.

A key requirement for implementing the FLAP is to coordinate the establishment of a three
member Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for programming the FLAP
funds allocated to each state. Each state level PDC consists of a representative from the Federal
Lands Highway Division office, the State Department of Transportation, and an organization or
entity that is suited to represent the local entities responsible for building, operating, or
maintaining transportation facilities that are located on, are adjacent to, or provide access to
Federal lands. Our program managers have coordinated with your department and have
identified the following positions that will fulfill the PDC requirement:

FLAP Program Manager, FHWA, EFLHD

Program Development, Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Transportation Planning Manager, Southeast Region Planning and Economic Development
District


Additional information on the implementation of FLAP can be found on the EFLHD MAP-21
website at http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/federal-lands-access.aspx. If you have any
questions, please contact Mr. David Payne at 571-434-1543 or David.Payne@dot.gov, or myself
at 703-404-6276 or Karen.Schmidt@dot.gov.

Sincerely yours,

K+ Crt—

SY Karen A. Schmidt
Director, Office of Program Administration

ce:

Mr. James C. Hadfield, Transportation Planning Manager, Southeast Region Planning and
Economic Development District, Taunton, MA

Mr. Bill Palmer, Program Development, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Boston,
MA

Ms. Pamela Stephenson, Division Administrator, Massachusetts Federal Aid Division Office,

Cambridge, MA
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|1. | China Metro-Rural Limited, a Cayman Islands incorporated company continued in BVI
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | China Metro-Rural Exchange Limited,


LOGO
, a HK company
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------



|3. | China Northeast Logistics City Co., Ltd. ,


LOGO
, a PRC company
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | Tieling Northeast City Advertising Co., Ltd.,


LOGO
, a PRC company
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------



|5. | Tieling North Asia Property Management Co., Ltd.,


LOGO
, a PRC company
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------



|6. | Tieling North Asia Development Co., Ltd.,


LOGO
, a PRC company
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------



|7. | Shenyang Jiataihe Investments Co., Ltd.,


LOGO
, a PRC company
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------



|8. | Tieling Northeast City Motor Vehicle Trading Co., Ltd.,


LOGO
, a PRC company
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|9. | M.S. Electronic Emporium Limited, a BVI company
|-- | -----------------------------------------------



|10. | China Metro-Rural Development Ltd.,


LOGO
, a HK Company
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------



|11. | China Northeast Logistics City Dezhou Co., Ltd.,


LOGO
, a PRC company
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



|12. | Dezhou Northeast City Property Co., Ltd.,


LOGO
, a PRC company
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------



|13. | Dezhou North Asia Property Management Co., Ltd.,


LOGO
, a PRC company
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



|14. | China Glorious City Development Limited,


LOGO
, a Hong Kong company
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|15. | China Glorious City (Hengyang) Co., Ltd.,


LOGO
, a PRC company
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------



|16. | China Glorious City Strategic Limited,


LOGO
, a Hong Kong company
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------



|17. | China Glorious City Investments Limited,


LOGO
, a Hong Kong company
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|18. | China Glorious City Construction Limited,


LOGO
, a Hong Kong company
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



|19. | Shenzhen China Northeast Logistics City Co., Ltd.


LOGO
, a PRC company
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Valerie K. FREEDMAN, Appellant, v. Evelyn Patricia FREEDMAN, Appellee.

No. 69-521.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 23, 1969.

Talianoff, Waller & Berger, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Dunn & Johnson, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellee.

*456Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal one of the defendants in the trial court seeks review of an order denying her motion to quash service of process upon her. It is urged that the appellant was not personally served and that constructive service of process fails to constitute sufficient service because the complaint seeks damages under a strictly common law tort theory.

An examination of the complaint reveals that although it contains a prayer for the assessment of damages, it also seeks to impose a trust upon the proceeds of an estate that is being probated in Dade County, Florida. The order appealed from is affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Vanstone v. Whitelaw, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 425. It should be pointed out that appellant concedes the constructive service effected is not a basis for a personal judgment. See Ake v. Chancey, 152 Fla. 677, 13 So.2d 6, 9 (1943).

Affirmed.
##### 



COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Exhibit 32.1 Certification of CEO 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 Comprehensive Care Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 29, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2004 (the Report),
Mary Jane Johnson, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of her knowledge, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Mary Jane JohnsonMary Jane JohnsonPresident and Chief Executive OfficerApril 12, 2004
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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 Comprehensive Care
Corporation and will be retained by Comprehensive Care Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 23
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2547

CAROLYN ADAMS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

SHEPPARD PRATT HEALTH SYSTEM, 

 Defendant - Appellee, 

and 

STEVEN S. SHARFSTEIN, MD, CEO; THOMAS GRAHAM, Program 

Director; KAREN MALSTORM, Nursing Supervisor, 

 Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:11-cv-03755-CCB) 

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Carolyn Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Stephen Harrison, 

Teresa D. Teare, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee. 
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

Carolyn Adams appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to Defendant Sheppard Pratt Health 

System in her civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 

(West 2003 & Supp. 2012), and the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 (2012). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Adams v. Sheppard Pratt Health Sys., 

No. 1:11-cv-03755-CCB (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2013). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59857-59858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29191]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. EP98-218-000]


Jersey Central Power & Light Company; Metropolitan Edison 
Company; Pennsylvania Electric Company; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 16, 1997, Jersey Central Power & Light 
Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company 
(collectively and each doing business as GPU Energy) filed amendments 
to the GPU Energy Operating Capacity and/or Energy Sales Tariff, FERC 
Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1. GPU Energy requests an 
effective date of November 1, 1997, for the amendments.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of

[[Page 59858]]

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before November 10, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make the 
protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29191 Filed 11-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# L_2005199EN.01007001.xml

| 29.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 199/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 199/70

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1226/2005

of 28 July 2005

fixing the maximum export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 582/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 26 July 2005. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 26 July 2005.

| (3) | The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 582/2004, for the tendering period ending on 26 July 2005, the maximum amount of refund for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be 15,00 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 July 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 July 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 67. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 25).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004.

3

---