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


           (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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003 of Golf Host Resorts, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof
(the "Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, R. Keith Wilt, Vice President
& Treasurer of the Company, certify, 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/ R. Keith Wilt
                                    -------------------------------
                                    Name:  R. Keith Wilt
                                    Title: Vice President & Treasurer
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)
                                    Date:  May 21, 2004





                                     Page 24
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

April 11

, 2008

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 06

‐ 4356

Appeal from the United States District

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Court for the Central District of

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee , Illinois.

v. No. 05

‐ 30096

DONDI McINTOSH, Jeanne E. Scott,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Judge.

O R D E R

It is ORDERED that the first line of this court’s order in this case, issued

March 19, 2008, be amended to read as follows:

Dondi McIntosh pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of

cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), and use of a telephone in a drug offense,

see 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-92119, 333-32586, 333-38560, 333-48990, 333-51640) of
HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated and in the related Prospectuses and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-44786) pertaining to the Amended and
Restated 1996 Stock Option Plan of HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated of our report
dated September 19, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended June 30, 2001.

                                               ERNST & YOUNG, LLP



Reno, Nevada
October 11, 2001
# C_2020137EN.01005402.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/54

---

Action brought on 25 February 2020 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — Crafts Americana Group (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines)

(Case T-124/20)

(2020/C 137/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M/S. Indeutsch International (Noida, India) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, A. Leonelli, K. Hughes, Solicitors and S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Crafts Americana Group, Inc. (Vancouver, Washington, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines) — European Union trade mark No 8 884 264

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 in Case R 2672/2017-G

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Misapplication of the test of distinctiveness for three-dimensional and similar marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication of the test of distinctiveness for three-dimensional and similar marks.

---
Exhibit 10.1
 AMENDMENT NUMBER 5
TO THE
GOODRICH CORPORATION SEVERANCE PROGRAM
 th
       GOODRICH CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Marshall O. LarsenMarshall O. LarsenChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer 67




---



##### 



Exhibit B
To Goodrich Corporation Severance Program
 List of Exempt Facilities
  
 
 *
    
    Effective as of the Closing Date (as defined in the Asset Purchase Agreement between Goodrich
Corporation, Recon/Optical, Inc., and Bourns, Inc.) until the first anniversary of the Closing
Date. Thereafter, these locations are no longer considered Exempt Facilities under the Severance
Program. Revised July, 2008
 68
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,881
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  456,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,176
<INVENTORY>                                    181,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               897,705
<PP&E>                                         722,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,634,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,302,416
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,318
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,590,665
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,634,907
<SALES>                                        360,249
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,300,533
<CGS>                                          257,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,563,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               377,434
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                44,608
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                150,047
<INCOME-TAX>                                    74,114
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             75,933
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    75,933
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.84


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-88805) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan
and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-79559) pertaining to the
Borders Group, Inc. Management Stock Purchase Plan, Borders Group, Inc. Stock
Option Plan, Borders Group, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Borders Group,
Inc. Director Stock Plan, Borders Group, Inc. 401(k) Plan, and Borders Group,
Inc. Savings Plan for Employees Working in Puerto Rico of our report dated March
12, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Borders
Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
January 27, 2002.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Detroit, Michigan
April 23, 2002
<PAGE>
                           SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


                                 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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2001 of Golf Host Resorts, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof
(the "Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Merrick Kleeman, President of
the Company, certify, 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/ Merrick Kleeman
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Name:  Merrick Kleeman
                                             Title: President
                                             Date:  October 30, 2002
H. Res. 504

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

August 4, 1994.

Resolved, That all points of order against the conference

report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4426) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related

programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and

against its consideration are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10(a)


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment
No. 20 to Registration Statement on Form N-4 (Reg. No. 2-99958) of Sun Life of
Canada (U.S.) Variable Account D of our report dated February 9, 2001
accompanying the financial statements of Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Variable
Account D, and to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 7,
2001 accompanying the consolidated financial statements of Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada (U.S.).

We also consent to the references to us under the headings "Condensed Financial
Information - Accumulation Unit Values" and "Accountants" in the Prospectus,
which is part of such Registration Statement.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
July 24, 2001
On the RfD 

1. The Mocarelli et al. (2008) and Baccarelli et al. (2008) studies (based on the Seveso 

accident) were selected as cocritical studies for the derivation of the RfD. Given that these 

studies involve subchronic exposures and the RfD is for chronic exposures, is the rationale 

for this selection scientifically justified and clearly described? Please identify and provide the 

rationale for any other human studies that should be selected, including the rationale for why 

the study would be considered a superior candidate for the derivation of the chronic RfD. 

Add on to the next question 

On the cancer potency 

5.d. Due to nonlinearities in the Emond PBPK model (specifically pertaining to the 

relationship between exposure and internal dose), EPA calculated a series of risk-specific 

oral slope factors. The calculation of multiple slope factors has not been done before. Please 

comment on EPA’s rationale for and presentation of these slope factors. Does the calculation 

of multiple slope factors present a de facto assumption of low-dose nonlinearity, and if so, 

would it be preferable for EPA to use the same approach, i.e., estimation of a reference dose 

(RfD) from a point of departure (POD), that it has used for other chemicals in the IRIS 

database? 

From: Johnson, Mark S Dr CIV USA MEDCOM PHC 

Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:52 PM 

To: Meyer, Anita K HNC@NWO; Kurtz, Katharine M. (CIV); Putzrath, Resha 

(CIV) 

Cc: Boyd, Robert, Mr, OSD-ATL 

Subject: RE: NCEA Interagency Communication #68 (draft revised charge 

for 

dioxin SAB review) - no change in due date (UNCLASSIFIED) 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED 

Caveats: NONE 

I would like to know further their logic for the log-linear 

extrapolation 

from the various PODs. To do so assumes that even one molecule has a 

risk 

associated with it (that one molecule can cause cancer). Their logic in 

the 

documentation is that cancer is AhR-mediated (bc non Ahr-effects occur 

at 

much higher exposures). If that is their supposition, then it is 

receptor 

mediated and must function as a promoter (like a hormone); therefore 

must 

have a threshold. The NAS asked the EPA to provide a different curve 

beyond 

the POD, and the EPA argued that because they do not have enough info, 

they 

will use the conservative approach. However, that is not what the 

science 

suggests. I would suggest a curve similar to the phorbal esters, which 

function in a similar, yet conservative manner, but never got that far 

in 

the phonecon. 

Sorry for this long message, but I would ask the SAB if they feel that 

the 
EPAs logic for the log-linear extrapolation from the POD is justified. 

Thanks, 

Mark
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

September 8, 2020

s0831 

# Order

Clerk September 8, 2020

159271

LEONARD S. BOHN, Individually and as

Representative of a Class of Similarly

Situated Persons and Entities,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 159271

COA: 339306

Wayne CC: 15

- 013727

- CZ

CITY OF TAYLOR,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_____________________________________ ____/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the

case of DAART v City of Detroit (Docket No. 158852) is pending on appeal before this

Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present

application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE

pending the decision in that case.
House Calendar No. 153

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 418

[Report No. 103–494]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference rereport. with respect to the adoption of that conference and providing that rule XLIX shall not apply fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, budget for the United States Government for the Con. Res. 218) setting forth the congressional port to accompany the concurrent resolution (H.

MAY 4, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 153

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 418

[Report No. 103–494]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) setting forth the congressional

budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years 1995,

1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, and providing that rule XLIX shall not

apply with respect to the adoption of that conference report.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 4, 1994

Mr. BEILENSON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218)

setting forth the congressional budget for the United

States Government for the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997,

1998, and 1999, and providing that rule XLIX shall

not apply with respect to the adoption of that conference

report.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) set-
2

HRES 418 RH

1 ting forth the congressional budget for the United States

2 Government for the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,

3 and 1999. All points of order against the conference report

4 and against its consideration are waived. The conference

5 report shall be considered as read. The conference report

6 shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and con7 trolled by chairman and ranking minority member of the

8 Committee on the Budget.

9 SEC. 2. Rule XLIX shall not apply with respect to

10 the adoption by the Congress of the conference report to

11 accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218)

12 setting forth the congressional budget for the United

13 States Government for the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997,

14 1998, and 1999.
# C_2021079EN.01003102.xml

| 8.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/31

---

Action brought on 11 December 2020 — OP v Commission

(Case T-736/20)

(2021/C 79/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: OP (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul i) the decision of the Selection Board of 5 February 2020, by which the applicant was not placed on the reserve list of Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 and ii) the decision of the Appointing Authority of 3 September 2020, by which the complaint of the applicant against the decision of the Selection Board of 5 February 2020 was rejected, to the extent it contains additional reasoning; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul i) the decision of the Selection Board of 5 February 2020, by which the applicant was not placed on the reserve list of Open Competition EPSO/AST/147/19 and ii) the decision of the Appointing Authority of 3 September 2020, by which the complaint of the applicant against the decision of the Selection Board of 5 February 2020 was rejected, to the extent it contains additional reasoning;

| — | order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, transparency, objectivity and of Article 1d(5) of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, transparency, objectivity and of Article 1d(5) of the Staff Regulations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging insufficient and inadequate reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging insufficient and inadequate reasoning.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.

---
# Official Journal L 306/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 306 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6321 September 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 306

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6321 September 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1308 of 21 September 2020 determining, for a limited period of time, that the regulatory framework applicable to central counterparties in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is equivalent, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
  (notified under document C(2020) 6539)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1308 of 21 September 2020 determining, for a limited period of time, that the regulatory framework applicable to central counterparties in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is equivalent, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
  (notified under document C(2020) 6539)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2020) 6539)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.