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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: May 14, 2007
    By:
    /s/ James M. VanderhiderJames M. Vanderhider, President and ChiefFinancial Officer and Director
20530

#### State v. Anderson

Affirmed
# C_2020215EN.01003401.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT

(Case T-640/18) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of translation services of texts in the financial and banking fields from English into Hungarian - Ranking of a tenderer - Article 113(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 - Obligation to state reasons - Tender price of the highest ranked tenderers - Refusal of disclosure)

(2020/C 215/41)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Intercontact Budapest Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: É. Subasicz, lawyer)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: M. Garnier, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking, in essence, the annulment of the decision of the CdT of 29 August 2018 ranking the applicant’s bid in fifth position in the ranking of successful tenderers according to the cascade mechanism concerning Lot No 12 of contract notice FL/FIN 17.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) of 29 August 2018 classifying the tender of Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Intercontact Budapest Kft.) in fifth place in the ranking of successful tenderers according to the cascade mechanism concerning Lot No 12 of contract notice FL/FIN 17. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) of 29 August 2018 classifying the tender of Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Intercontact Budapest Kft.) in fifth place in the ranking of successful tenderers according to the cascade mechanism concerning Lot No 12 of contract notice FL/FIN 17.

| 2. | Dismisses the remaining heads of claim in the application. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remaining heads of claim in the application.

| 3. | Orders the CdT to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the CdT to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0579-0256. The time 

required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

OMB Approved

0579-0256

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

EXPORT CERTIFICATE FOR

ANIMAL PRODUCTS

CONTINUATION PAGE

Page Number:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Date:

Certificate Number:

Initials of Endorsing Official:

This is a continuation page which must be used in conjunction with VS Form 16-4.

VS Form 16-4A

JUL 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 621 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 621

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
                      future of the Supreme Court.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 2016

   Mr. Carter of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
                      future of the Supreme Court.

Whereas the Administration of President Barack Obama has been one of the most 
        divisive Presidencies in American history;
Whereas the election of 2016 will be a historic election that will shape the 
        future for generations to come;
Whereas Justice Antonin Scalia was a critical force on the United States Supreme 
        Court in defending the Constitution;
Whereas the Founding Fathers endowed the Supreme Court with power to strictly 
        interpret the law within the bounds of the Constitution, never intending 
        for Judges to write, change, or create laws; and
Whereas the Founding Fathers established a series of checks and balances with 
        the spirit and understanding that a limited government is the best form 
        of governance: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses its firm disapproval of the confirmation of 
        any liberal Justices to the United States Supreme Court 
        nominated by President Barack Obama; and
            (2) urges the Senate to hold any nomination to the United 
        States Supreme Court until the American people have a chance to 
        speak in the next Presidential election.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Belden & Blake Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the
undersigned:  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. Date: November 13, 2008 By: /s/ James M. Vanderhider
James M. Vanderhider, President and Chief Financial Officer This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q and shall not be treated as having been filed as part of the Form 10-Q.  4
Silicon Valley Bank

Modification of Forbearance Agreement

Borrower:   Exabyte Corporation
Address:      1685 38th Street
                    Boulder, Colorado 80301
Date:           As of February 28, 2003

THIS MODIFICATION OF FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT

The parties agree to amend the Forbearance Agreement between them, dated as of February 14, 2003 (the "Forbearance Agreement"), as follows, effective as of the date stated above. (Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Modification Agreement, shall have the meanings set forth in the Forbearance Agreement.)

1.        Extend Forbearance Period. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Silicon and Borrower hereby extend the Forbearance Period set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Forbearance Agreement from February 28, 2003, to and including March 31, 2003.

2.        Limitation to Maximum Credit Limit. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Forbearance Agreement or in the Loan Agreement to the contrary, during the Forbearance Period, the Maximum Credit Limit contained in Section 1 of the Amended and Restated Schedule to Loan and Security Agreement shall be $16,000,000.00.

3.        Extension of Vendor Agreement Deadline for Solectron Corporation. The deadline for obtaining a vendor agreement with Solectron Corporation as set forth in Section 8(7) of the Amended and Restated Schedule to Loan and Security Agreement is hereby extended to and including March 31, 2003.

4.        Representations True. Borrower represents and warrants to Silicon that all representations and warranties set forth in the Forbearance Agreement are true and correct as of the date hereof.

5.        General Provisions.This Modification Agreement, the Loan Agreement, any prior written amendments to the Loan Agreement signed by Silicon and Borrower, and the other written documents and agreements between Silicon and Borrower set forth in full all of the representations and agreements of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior discussions, representations, agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to the subject hereof.

6.        Loan Agreement and Forbearance Agreement Remain in Full Force and Effect. Except as herein expressly amended, all of the terms and provisions of the Loan Agreement, the Forbearance Agreement and all other documents and agreements between Silicon and Borrower shall continue in full force and effect and the same are hereby ratified and confirmed.

|Borrower:                    |  | Silicon:           
|---------------------------- |  | -------------------
|EXABYTE CORPORATION          |  | SILICON VALLEY BANK
|                             |  |                    
|By /s/ Tom W. Ward           |  | By                 
|President or Vice President  |  | Title              
|                             |  |                    
|By /s/ Amy J. Perius         |  |                    
|Secretary or Ass't Secretary |  |                    



00009231.doc
981 P.2d 703

#### Kathleen M. OMORI, Individually and as Next Friend of Matthew W. Omori, a minor, Respondent-Appellant, v. JOWA HAWAI'I CO., LTD. dba The Ilikai, Petitioner-Appellee, and Doe Defendants 1-20, Defendants.

No. 21007.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

May 26, 1999.

Arthur R. Roeca and Kari A. Wilhelm (of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka), Honolulu, on the writ, for petitioner-appellee.

Mitchell S. Wong (of David C. Schutter Associates), Honolulu, on the answer, for respondent-appellant.

MOON, C.J., KLEIN, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, and RAMIL, JJ.

Opinion of the Court by

MOON, C.J.

We granted certiorari for the sole purpose of clarifying what we believe may not be clear from the opinion of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in *Omori v. Jowa Hawaii Co., Ltd.,*91 Hawai'i 157, 981 P.2d 714 (1999) [hereinafter, *Omori].*In *Omori,*the ICA addressed the issue whether Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 386-5 (1993), the exclusive remedy provision of Hawaii’s Workers’ Compensation Law, bars a child from bringing a tort action against his or her mother’s employer for *in útero*injuries the child personally sustains in the same work-related accident that injures the mother.

The ICA concluded that “Plaintiffs were not prohibited by [HRS § 386-5] ... from suing for injuries that Matthew[, the child,] physically and personally suffered as a result of [his mother’s,] Ms. Omori’s[,] work-related injury.” *Omori,*at 161, 981 P.2d at 718. We agree. However, in restating its holding at the end of the opinion, the ICA appeared to limit its holding to the injuries of the child, Matthew, stating that *“he*was not barred by HRS § 386-5....” *Id.,*at 162, 981 P.2d at 719 (emphasis added).

For purposes of clarification, we explicitly hold that HRS § 386-5 bars neither Matthew Omori’s tort claims for his *in útero*injuries, nor any otherwise valid claims of any other party that allegedly derive from Matthew Omori’s injuries. *See Winters v. Silver Fox Bar,*71 Haw. 524, 536, 797 P.2d 51, 56 (1990) (“The majority rule is that a plaintiff in a [derivative-injury tort] action can only recover if the tortious harm the [injured party] suffered would have entitled the [injured party] to maintain an action against the defen*147dant.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)). Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff Kathleen Omori, Matthew’s mother, possesses any valid claims against the Ilikai based on *Matthew’s*injuries, *e.g.,*loss of filial consortium, HRS § 386-5 poses no barrier to her right to seek relief based on such claims.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection withthis quarterly report of IPSCO Inc. (the “registrant”), the undersignedcertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of ourknowledge:

1.                The report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: November 8, 2006 |                                    |     |     |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------|----------|----------|
| By:                     | /s/ DAVID S. SUTHERLAND            |     | By:      | /s/ VICKI L. AVRIL |
|                    | David S. Sutherland                |     |     | Vicki L. Avril |
| * *                | *President and Chief Executive Officer* | * * | * * | *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### Harry Nick HALVERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 3461.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Feb. 3, 1978.

Sue Ellen Tatter, Asst. Public Defender, and Brian C. Shortell, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

Michael J. Keenan, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Joseph D. Balfe, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NO WITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment following a plea of guilty to the crime of manslaughter in violation of AS 11.15.040. The charge stemmed from the shooting death of Roy Adams during a drinking bout. Halverson was showing off the revolver he had just purchased to several people, including Adams, at a party. *1381When Adams asked Halverson if the pistol worked, Halverson shot out of a window. Adams then challenged, “If you got guts enough, why don’t you try to shoot me?” Both men continued drinking. The victim repeated his dare. Halverson pointed the gun at Adams and pulled the trigger twice. Halverson, believing the fallen Adams had just passed out drunk, left the party and went to sleep.

In this sentence appeal, Halverson asserts that the trial judge improperly emphasized the deterrence of others and societal condemnation of Halverson’s conduct rather than rehabilitation, that the trial judge had insufficient psychological data concerning Halverson and concerning available alcohol programs in which Halverson might have been placed, and that the sentence is clearly excessive.

We have reviewed the sentencing proceedings in the light of the criteria set forth in *State v. Chaney,*477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970). We have concluded that in imposing this sentence the trial court was not clearly mistaken.1

AFFIRMED.

1

. *See State v. Abraham,*566 P.2d 267 (Alaska 1977); *Dulier v. State,*511 P.2d 1058 (Alaska 1973); *Gullard v. State,*497 P.2d 93 (Alaska 1972). *See also*R. Erwin, “Five Years of Sentence Review in Alaska,” 5 *U.C.L.A.*— Alaska *L.Rev.*1 (1975).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1592

ROSA MCLEAN BOURGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EATON CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-98-266-1-T) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 27, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosa McLean Bourger, Appellant Pro Se. John James Doyle, Jr., Jill Stricklin Cox, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Rosa McLean Bourger appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in her employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bourger v. Eaton Corp. , No. CA-98-266-1-T (W.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 2000). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### James Lee HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 14-70001

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED August 9, 2017

Eric M. Albritton, Albritton Law Firm, Longview, TX, Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Cap-shaw DeRieux, L.L.P., Gladewater, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.

*315Arthur D’Andrea, Stephen M. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Sheri L. Johnson, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, for Amici Curiae American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Are of the United States.

Mark Keith Glasser, Senior Litigation Attorney, Sidley Austin, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Amicus Curiae Texas Psychological Association.

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Henderson’s successive federal habeas petition in which he claimed that he is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible to be executed under *Atkins v. Virginia,*536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). *Henderson v. Stephens,*791 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded this case to us for further consideration in the light of *Moore v. Texas,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017). *Henderson v. Davis,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1450, 197 L.Ed.2d 644 (2017). It appears that the remand from the Supreme Court is best vetted and addressed first by the district court.

Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings in the light of *Moore.*
24135

#### State v. Uejo

Affirmed
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
EXHIBIT 21.01 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

INTERLAND, INC.
EXHIBITS TO FORM 10-K

                            Listing of Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            STATE (OR
                                                            JURISDICTION)        PERCENTAGE
                                                            IN WHICH             OWNERSHIP
NAME                                                        INCORPORATED         BY REGISTRANT
---------------------------------------------------         --------------       -------------
<S>                                                         <C>                  <C>
CommuniTech.Net, Inc.                                       Missouri                  100%
DialTone, Inc.                                              Florida                   100%
iNNERHOST, Inc.                                             Florida                   100%
HostPro, Inc. (f/k/a Micron PC Web Services, Inc.)          Delaware                  100%
Wazoo Web, Inc.                                             Georgia                   100%
MEI California, Inc.                                        California                100%
Micron Electronics (H.K.) Limited                           Hong Kong                 100%
Micron Electronics Overseas Trading, Inc.                   Barbados                  100%
Micron Electronics International, Inc.                      Delaware                  100%
Micron Electronics Asia-Pacific Holdings, Inc.              B.V.I                     100%
Micron Electronics Asia-Pacific Operations, Inc.            B.V.I                     100%
Micron Electronics Asia-Pacific Trading, Ltd.               Hong Kong                 100%
iNNERHOST Holdings, Inc.                                    B.V.I                     100%
Trellix Corporation                                         Massachusetts             100%
Hostcentric, Inc.                                           Delaware                  100%
Hostcentric Technologies, Inc.                              Delaware                  100%
Domain Names International LLC                              Delaware                  100%
</TABLE>
#### Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd. v. Dunn

20926

1/12/99

Affirmed