alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1



                     CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

          Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


The  undersigned,  being the Chief Executive  Officer of Kaneb Pipe Line Company
LLC, as General  Partner of Kaneb Pipe Line Partners,  L.P. (the  "Partnership")
hereby certifies that the Partnership's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended  December 31, 2002,  filed with the United States  Securities and Exchange
Commission  pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)),  fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information
contained in such Annual Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


Date:    March 28, 2003


                                             //s//  EDWARD D. DOHERTY
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Edward D. Doherty
                                       Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

GENAERA CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leanne M. Kelly, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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/ Leanne M. Kelly                              
|Leanne M. Kelly                                  
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|August 9, 2007
IV 

★

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 547 

Expressing support for designation of December 3, 2015, as the ‘‘National 

Day of 3D Printing’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2015 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, 

Mr. STIVERS, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. RUSH, Mr. HONDA, and Mr. LANGEVIN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of December 3, 2015, 

as the ‘‘National Day of 3D Printing’’. 

Whereas additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, 

is a process by which digital 3D design data is used to 

build up a component in layers by depositing material; 

Whereas 3D printing creates an object layer by layer, greatly 

reducing waste and increasing efficiency compared to traditional manufacturing techniques; 

Whereas 3D printing has grown exponentially over the last 

several years; 

Whereas the United States is a world leader in advanced 

manufacturing, and has a history of design innovation; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HRES 547 IH1S 

Whereas public-private partnerships that promote advanced 

manufacturing, such as the Digital Manufacturing and 

Design Innovation Institute and other Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, will develop enhanced digital capabilities to design and test new products and reduce costs in 

manufacturing processes across a variety of industries; 

Whereas 3D printing has widespread applications in home 

construction, home goods production, biotechnology, the 

automotive sector, aerospace, medicine, consumer electronics, and defense; 

Whereas 3D printing has the potential to reshape manufacturing in the United States, by decreasing the cost of 

producing goods for small businesses and local manufacturers; 

Whereas innovation will be increased, as 3D printing reduces 

the time required for product development and market 

launch; and 

Whereas, December 3, 2015, would be an appropriate date to 

designate as the ‘‘National Day of 3D Printing’’: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of the ‘‘National 

3 Day of 3D Printing’’; 

4 (2) recognizes the economic impact of 3D print5 ing and the positive implications of 3D printing for 

6 the United States advanced manufacturing sector; 

7 and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HRES 547 IH1S 

1 (3) encourages the promotion and celebration of 

2 3D printing technology. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                       |   |       |   | State or Other |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                                       |   | Percentage |   | Jurisdiction             |
| Subsidiaries (1)                      |   | Owned      |   | of Incorporation    |
|                                       |   |       |   |                     |
| Ameriana      Bank (2)                     |   |       | 100    | %                        | Indiana |
|                                       |   |       |   |                     |   |
| Ameriana      Insurance Agency, Inc. (3)   |   |       | 100    |                     | Indiana |
|                                       |   |       |   |                     |   |
| Ameriana      Financial Services, Inc. (3) |   |       | 100    |                     | Indiana |
|                                       |   |       |   |                     |   |
| Ameriana      Capital Trust I              |   |       | 100    |                     | Delaware |
|                                       |   |       |   |                     |   |
| Midwest      Corporate Tax Credit Fund     |   |       | 6      |                     | Indiana |

----

| (1) | Operations      of the Company’s wholly-owned direct subsidiary, Ameriana Bank and      Ameriana Bank’s two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Ameriana Insurance Agency,      Inc, and Ameriana Financial Services, Inc. are included in the Company’s      consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report on Form      10-K.  Additionally, the results of operations of a former      wholly-owned subsidiary of Ameriana Bank that was liquidated effective      December 31, 2009, Ameriana Investment Management, Inc., are included in      the Company’s consolidated financialstatements. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | First-tier      subsidiary of the Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------|

| (3) | Second-tier      subsidiary of the Company 100% owned by Ameriana Bank, a first-tier      subsidiary of the Company. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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, 2003,
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 10, 2003                  /s/ John L. Schwager
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         John L. Schwager, Director, President
                                         and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q and shall not be treated as having
been filed as part of the Form 10-Q.

                                       29
#### Matsuo v. ISF Dev. Co., Ltd.

19773

5/21/98

Affirmed in part & Reversed in part
# C_2018319EN.01002603.xml

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/26

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — Eesti Apteekide Ühendus v Commission

(Case T-10/18) (1)

(2018/C 319/33)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

---
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.15.2
                                 PROMISSORY NOTE



<S>                                            <C>
   $400,000.00
-------------------------


                                                              Greenville, South Carolina
                                                              February 14, 2002



              FOR VALUE RECEIVED                RSI Holdings, Inc.
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                               28 EAST COURT STREET, GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA 29601
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

promises to pay                                       Minor M. Shaw
                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 16 Hemlock Drive, Greenville, South Carolina 29601
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the sum of                            Four Hundred Thousand Dollars and No/100---------------------
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        bearing interest only             from          date of this note         at the rate of          7.00%
---------------------------------------            -----------------------------                    ------------------

to be computed and paid quarterly.      Any accrued interest and unpaid principal shall be

be paid in full on or before                                          February 14, 2007
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                     RSI Holdings, Inc.



                                        By:         /s/ Buck A. Mickel                           3-25-04
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
                                                     Buck A. Mickel                                Date
                                                     President & CEO
</TABLE>
#### Village of Marshallville, Appellant, *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

(No. 31809

Decided July 13, 1949.)

*152
      *Mr. Ray Lindamood*and *Messrs. Herbert & Hombey,*for appellant.

*Mr. Herbert 8. Huffy,*attorney general, and *Mr. Kenneth B. Johnston,*for appellee.

By the Court.

Counsel for the village by brief state: “The only legal question here involved is whether the commission’s order of September 23,1948, is a final order, and hence appealable.”

Such counsel contend the commission on that date entered a “final order” in a “special proceeding” within the meaning of those terms as used in Section 12223-2, General Code.

We are of opinion that the Public Utilities Commission on May 25,1948, entered a final order in a special proceeding, and find that no application for rehearing was filed within 30 days and no appeal was commenced within 60 days from that final order. The application filed on September 8 in that proceeding did not institute another “special proceeding,” and, therefore, the order dismissing that application was not a final order in a “special proceeding.”

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
# C_2020215EN.01002902.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-443/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Vogue Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the mark applied for - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)

(2020/C 215/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 (Case R 1362/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE
REGISTRANT





PARENT





First
Financial Service Corporation





State
      of
                                  
                                  PercentageSUBSIDIARIES
                                  
                                  Incorporation
                                  
                                  OwnedFirst
      Federal Savings Bank of Elizabethtown
                                  
                                  Kentucky
                                  
                                  
                                  100
                                  %First
      Service Corporation of Elizabethtown (a)
                                  
                                  Kentucky
                                  
                                  
                                  100
                                  %First
      Federal Office Park, LLC (a)
                                  
                                  Kentucky
                                  
                                  
                                  100
                                  %Heritage
      Properties, LLC (a)
                                  
                                  Kentucky
                                  
                                  
                                  100
                                  %First
      Federal Statutory Trust II (a)
                                  
                                  Kentucky
                                  
                                  
                                  100
                                  %First
      Federal Statutory Trust III (a)
                                  
                                  Kentucky
                                  
                                  
                                  100
                                  %








(a)  Wholly-owned
subsidiaries of First Federal Savings Bank of Elizabethtown.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Victor Manuel Moreno SERVIN, also known as Jose Alfredo Martinez, Appellant.

No. 04-4147.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 7, 2005.

Decided: Oct. 13, 2005.

Joe W. Stecher, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for for Appellee.

John J. Velasquez, John J. Velasquez, Velasquez Law Offices, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

*566PER CURIAM.

Victor Manuel Moreno Servin pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court1 sentenced him to 51 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel argues that the district court erred in determining the drug quantity for which Servin was responsible and sentencing him accordingly.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding the drug quantity attributable to Servin. *See United States v. Milton,*153 F.3d 891, 898 (8th Cir.1998) (standard of review), *cert. denied,*525 U.S. 1165, 119 S.Ct. 1082, 143 L.Ed.2d 83 (1999). The district court heard live testimony from Servin and an individual to whom he had distributed drugs, and the court’s decision to discredit Servin’s denials in favor of the other witness’s testimony was not clear error. *See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,*470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (credibility determinations are virtually never clear error). A conservative drug-quantity estimate drawn from that witness’s testimony falls well within the 50-to-200-gram range used to establish Servin’s base offense level.

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000880114
<NAME> BELDEN & BLAKE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,660
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,905
<PP&E>                                         557,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 598,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,056
<BONDS>                                        361,263
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,011
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,533
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   598,419
<SALES>                                         39,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,803
<CGS>                                           20,748
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,640
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,062
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,647)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,376)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,271)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019220EN.01003801.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (WEIN FÜR PROFIS)

(Case T-56/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark WEIN FÜR PROFIS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Misleading character - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 220/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Wildeshausen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 501/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign WEIN FÜR PROFIS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.

---
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

236) ll-K- (1)^9 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:56 AM Sheet 236 of 325 
P.2 

'A\ ^ 

II-K-(I)-49 

TECHNICAL STAFF ANALYSIS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF 

PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON PHASE II OF INCREMENTAL PRICING. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 

February 8, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-49
#### Doe, In re

21876

1/20/2000

Granted
# C_2019065EN.01004703.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/47

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGC PARTNERS)

(Case T-520/18) (1)

(2019/C 65/63)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

---