alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2




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 Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:




(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and




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




Dated: September 14, 2010

/s/ STEVEN D. BONHAMSteven D. BonhamChief Financial Officer


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 Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




---
30 Utah 2d 461

#### William Cedric CLOUSE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Samuel SMITH, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 13485.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 13, 1974.

Bruce C. Lubeck of Salt Lake Legal Defenders Ass’n., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., M. Reid Russell, Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Attys. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a writ of habeas corpus petition. Affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary. He was represented by counsel at the time, who advised the court he was of the opinion defendant knowingly and voluntarily was entering such plea. This conclusion was fortified by answers of defendant to numerous questions asked by the court, obviously posed to protect defendant’s rights. Consequently, and based on the record, we conclude defendant’s sole point on appeal to be lacking in merit.

CALLISTER, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 10.11**

 

**SECOND AMENDMENT**

**OF THE**

**SKYFINANCIAL GROUP, INC. PROFIT SHARING, 401(K) AND ESOP PLAN**

(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2004) 

 

**WHEREAS,** Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Profit Sharing, 401(k) and ESOPPlan (the “Plan”); and 

 

**WHEREAS,** the Company has delegated authority to amend the Plan to the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Benefit Plans Committee (the “Committee”), and the Committee has determined that amendment of the Plan isnecessary and desirable. 

 

**NOW,THEREFORE,** pursuant to the power reserved to the Company by Section 10.01 of the Plan, and by virtue of the authority delegated to the Committee, the Plan, as previously amended, is hereby further amended, effective as of, andcontingent upon the closing of the Company’s acquisition of all of the outstanding stock of Second Bancorp Incorporated on or about July 1, 2004, by adding the following to new Section 13.13 to the Plan, immediately after Section 13.12 thereof:

 

“**13.13 Employees of Second BancorpIncorporated.** The Company acquired all of the outstanding stock of Second Bancorp Incorporated (‘SBI’) effective on or about July 1, 2004 (the ‘Acquisition Date’). Effective January 1, 2005, eligible employees of SBI, and anycorporation that is affiliated with SBI, will be eligible to participate in the Plan. No employee of SBI, or any corporation that was affiliated with SBI immediately prior to the Acquisition Date, shall be eligible to participate in the Plan untilJanuary 1, 2005.” 

 

*             *             * 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** on behalf of the Committee, theundersigned Committee member has executed this amendment this 28th day of June 2004. 

 

**SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.**

**BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE**

By:
 
\s\ Thomas A. Sciorilli
  
Thomas A. Sciorilli

Its:
 
Senior Vice President & Chief Human Resources Officer

 

- 2 -
# C_2010288EN.01000901.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz (Austria)) — Criminal proceedings against Ernst Engelmann

(Case C-64/08) (1)

(Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - National rules establishing a system of concessions for the operation of games of chance in casinos - Concessions obtainable solely by public limited companies established in national territory - All concessions granted without any competitive procedure)

(2010/C 288/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Linz

Party in the main proceedings

Ernst Engelmann

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Linz — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — National legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal sanctions, the operation of games of chance in casinos without a concession granted by the competent authority, but restricting the possibility of obtaining such a concession, of a maximum duration of 15 years, to public limited companies established in national territory which do not have any branches abroad

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 43 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which games of chance may be operated in gaming establishments only by operators whose seat is in the territory of that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 43 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which games of chance may be operated in gaming establishments only by operators whose seat is in the territory of that Member State.

| 2. | The obligation of transparency flowing from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and from the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality precludes the grant without any competitive procedure of all the concessions to operate gaming establishments in the territory of a Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The obligation of transparency flowing from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and from the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality precludes the grant without any competitive procedure of all the concessions to operate gaming establishments in the territory of a Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,713
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           8,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 236,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         15,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,396
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   236,775
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,499
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,094
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,094
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.39
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  Pursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned, being the Principal Financial Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certifies that the Partnership's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

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 the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|Date: April 29, 2008 |  | By: | /s/MARK A. MAKIMark A. Maki Vice President, Finance
(Principal Financial Officer)
|-------------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BARBARA LEE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 25, 2012

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall 
votes 499-503. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``no'' on 
No. 499, ``no'' on No. 500, ``yes'' on No. 501, ``no'' on No. 502, and 
``no'' on No. 503.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998        
<CASH>                                               2,062  
<SECURITIES>                                             0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                       11,602  
<ALLOWANCES>                                           210  
<INVENTORY>                                         13,610  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    29,699  
<PP&E>                                              54,214  
<DEPRECIATION>                                      11,494  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      94,449  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               29,304  
<BONDS>                                             24,995  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0  
<PREFERRED>                                              0  
<COMMON>                                               638  
<OTHER-SE>                                          36,103  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        94,449  
<SALES>                                             14,453  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    19,892  
<CGS>                                                9,793  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       14,435  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     5,881  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     818  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,243) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (452) 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (659) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0  
<CHANGES>                                                0  
<NET-INCOME>                                          (659) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.11) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.11)
                                                    


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21

              Subsidiaries of American HealthChoice, Inc.


                     Subsidiary                              Clinic
  1.  AHC Chiropractic Clinics, Inc., a Texas     Bandera, Wurzbach, San
        corporation                                 Pedro, Corpus Christi,
                                                    San Benito, Laredo & Katy
                                                    Chiropractic
      AHC Physicians Corporation, Inc., a         San Pedro & Southcross
        Texas corporation                           medical
      AHC Physicians Corporation, Inc., a         Inactive
        Georgia corporation
      Total Medical Diagnostics, Inc., a          Inactive
        Delaware corporation
      Nationwide Sports and Injury, Inc., a       Bandera Physical therapy
        Texas corporation
      United Chiropractic Clinics of Uptown,      Uptown
        Inc., a Louisiana corporation
      New Orleans East Chiropractic Clinics,      New Orleans East
        Inc., a Louisiana corporation
      AHC Clinic Management, L.L.C., a Texas      Inactive
        limited liability company
      AHI Management, Inc., a Texas               Corporate office
        corporation
      Diagnostic Services, Inc., a Texas          Inactive
        corporation
      Katy Sports Injury and Rehab,               Inactive
        Incorporated, a Texas corporation
      Pacific Chiropractic (San Pedro),
        Incorporated, d/b/a United Chiropractic   Inactive
        Clinic, a Texas corporation
      Apple Chiropractic Clinic of Wurzbach,
        Incorporated, a Texas corporation         Inactive
      Valley Family Health Center, L.L.C., a
        Texas limited liability company           Valley Family chiropractic
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Harold L. Ferguson, Appellant, v James Campbell, as Sheriff of Albany County, Respondent.

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Keegan, J.), entered June 10, *9601991, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding claiming that the indictments against him should be dismissed and he should therefore be released from jail because he has not been tried within the six-month period of CPL 30.30 (1) (a). As County Court noted, however, the statute does not require that a defendant be tried within the six-month period, only that the People state their readiness for trial within that time. Court congestion cannot be used to penalize the People if the trial itself is delayed *(see, People v Kendzia,*64 NY2d 331, 337-338; *People ex rel. Franklin v Warden,*31 NY2d 498, 501-504; *People v Giordano,*81 AD2d 1003, *affd*56 NY2d 524). The record in this case indicates that the People announced their readiness for trial within six months of the filing of the accusatory instruments *(see, People v Ki Rhee,*111 AD2d 655, 656) and, therefore, there has been compliance with the requirements of CPL 30.30 (1) (a) *(see, People v Giordano,*56 NY2d 524, *supra; People v Battles,*77 AD2d 405, 407; *see also,*General Construction Law §30). Finally, there is no indication in the record that the People have not been continually ready for trial since that time *(see, People v Ki Rhee, supra,*at 656; *compare, People v Anderson,*66 NY2d 529). County Court properly determined that petitioner was not entitled to dismissal of the indictments under CPL 30.30.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
* 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. 01-20516

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE ELIECER CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-30-1

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

March 6, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Eliecer Castro appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent

to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a) and 846. Castro argues that the district court erred

by enhancing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a)

for his role as an organizer or leader. He additionally asserts

that the district court erred in holding him accountable for 50

kilograms of cocaine based on information from a Government

informant.
No. 01-20516

-2-

The district court’s determination that a defendant is an

organizer or leader under § 3B1.1 is a factual finding which this

court will disturb only if it is clearly erroneous. United

States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 689-90 (5th Cir. 1995). Generally,

a presentence report (PSR) bears sufficient indicia of

reliability to be considered as evidence by the sentencing judge

when making factual determinations. United States v. Alfaro, 919

F.2d 962, 966 (5th Cir. 1990). A close examination of the PSR

shows that it contained sufficient factual findings to support

the leadership adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), comment.

(n.4); Ayala, 47 F.3d at 689-90. The district court’s finding

that Castro was a leader/organizer is not clearly erroneous.

We also review the district court’s determination regarding

the quantity of drugs for clear error. United States v. Alford,

142 F.3d 825, 831 (5th Cir. 1998). The sworn testimony of

unindicted co-conspirator Jimmy Escalante provided sufficient

corroboration for the statements Escalante made to investigative

agents regarding the amount of drugs he was hired by Castro to

distribute. See United States v. Morris, 46 F.3d 410, 425 (5th

Cir. 1995). Furthermore, Castro cannot now complain, for the

first time, that he was denied his rights of confrontation and

cross-examination and fails to demonstrate plain error. See id.

at 423; United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.

1994)(en banc), abrogated in part, Johnson v. United States, 520

U.S. 461 (1997). The district court’s finding that Castro was

accountable for the 50 kilograms of cocaine was not clearly

erroneous. 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2019423EN.01004602.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ADPepper)

(Case T-668/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Word mark ADPepper - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) and Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

(2019/C 423/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch and T. Hilser, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Lux, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2018 (Case R 840/2017-1), relating to revocation proceedings between 6Minutes Media and ad pepper media International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 178: Mr. Rehberg.
       H.R. 181: Mr. Fincher.
       H.R. 186: Mr. Boswell.
       H.R. 273: Mr. Filner.
       H.R. 1063: Mr. Berg.
       H.R. 1244: Mr. Rokita.
       H.R. 1370: Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. McClintock, Mr. 
     Duffy, Ms. Hayworth, Mr. Denham, Mr. Herger, Mr. McKeon, Mr. 
     Lewis of California, Mr. Royce, Mr. Dold, Mr. Calvert, Mr. 
     Daniel E. Lungren of California, and Mr. Issa.
       H.R. 1639: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and Mr. 
     Turner of New York.
       H.R. 2524: Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
       H.R 2773: Mr. Faleomavaega.
       H.R. 2978: Mr. Labrador.
       H.R 3242: Mr. Rangel.
       H.R. 3337: Mr. Berg.
       H.R 3461: Mr. Olson, Mr. Cassidy, and Mrs. Black.
       H.R. 3646: Mr. Tierney.
       H.R. 3798: Mr. Royce and Mr. Bishop of New York.
       H.R. 4235: Mr. Kind, Mr. Ross of Florida, and Mr. Rooney.
       H.R. 4405: Mr. Diaz-Balart, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. 
     Ellison, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. Crowley.
       H.R. 5830: Mr. Rangel, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Roe 
     of Tennessee, and Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
       H.R. 5910: Mr. Davis of Kentucky.
       H.R. 5914: Mr. Bishop of New York.
       H.R. 5925: Mr. Duncan of Tennessee.
       H.R. 6009: Mr. McClintock.
       H.R. 6043: Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Guthrie, and Mr. Gene Green of 
     Texas.
       H.R. 6089: Mr. Labrador.
       H.R. 6097: Mr. Coffman of Colorado.
       H.R. 6138: Mr. Ellison and Mr. Hastings of Florida.
       H.R. 6151: Mr. Paul.
       H.R. 6176: Mr. Paul.
       H.J. Res. 106: Mr. Boren.
       H.J. Res. 110: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
       H.J. Res. 112: Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Labrador, 
     Mr. Rokita, and Mr. Gingrey of Georgia.
       H. Res. 134: Mr. Coble, Mr. Carson of Indiana, and Mr. 
     Diaz-Balart.
       H. Res. 378: Mr. Lujan.
       H. Res. 506: Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Van 
     Hollen, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Wolf.
       H. Res. 687: Mr. Bishop of New York.
       H. Res. 730: Mr. Moran, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Keating, and Mr. 
     Cooper.

                          ____________________
```