alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Bruce B. Nolte, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TransCommunity Financial Corporation for the period ended September 30, 2006;



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:



(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



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):



(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date:

February 26, 2007

|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|/s/ Bruce B. Nolte                 
|Bruce B. Nolte                     
|President & Chief Executive Officer
# C_2011080EN.01000602.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/6

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2010 — Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Artoz-Papier AG

(Case C-559/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark ATOZ - Opposition by the proprietor of the international word mark ARTOZ - Refusal of registration)

2011/C 80/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Deepak Rajani (represented by: A. Kockläuner, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Artoz-Papier AG

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 26 November 2008 in Case T-100/06 Rajani v OHIM — Artoz-Papier (ATOZ), by which that Court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark ATOZ, for services in Classes 35 and 41, against Decision R 1126/2004-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 January 2006 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the international word mark ‘ARTOZ’ for services in Classes 35 and 41

Rajani

OHIM — Artoz-Papier (ATOZ)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Rajani shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Rajani shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.

1

---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2806

_____________________________

STEVEN T. RECK,

Appellant,

v.

SIGNS UNLIMITED I, LLC, a 

Florida Limited Liability 

Company, MANU SAMATAMI,

partner for Sakhsams 

Investment, and CITY OF 

PANAMA CITY BEACH,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

James B. Fensom, Judge.

October 23, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Douglas B. Dykes of Syfrett, Dykes & Furr, Panama City; Brian J. 

Lee of Schuler & Lee, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Gwendolyn P. Adkins of Coppins Monroe Adkins Dincman, 

Tallahassee; Nicholas D. Freeman and Daniel Owen McLeod of 

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Orlando; 

Douglas F. Miller of Kubicki Draper P.A., Pensacola, for Appellees.
Exhibit 4.39


 


FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment to Distribution Agreement is made as of this 6th
day of August 2003 by and between Cardinal Health 414, Inc., a Delaware
corporation formerly known as Syncor International Corporation (“Cardinal
Health”), and Draximage, Inc., a Canadian corporation (“Draximage”), and amends
that certain Distribution Agreement, dated July 12, 2000 (the “Agreement”),
by and between Cardinal Health and Draximage. Initially capitalized terms used
but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the
Agreement.


 


Cardinal Health and Draximage hereby agree to the following amendments
to the Agreement:


 


1.             Section 2(A) of the Agreement is hereby
amended to add the following second paragraph:


 


“Notwithstanding the foregoing, Draximage may distribute the Product to
Independent Radiopharmacies in the Territory, subject to the provisions of Section 6A.”


 


2.             Section 4(B) of the Agreement is hereby
amended to add the following second paragraph:


 


“In the event that Draximage sells the Product to an Independent
Radiopharmacy as permitted under the second paragraph of Section 2, ***


 


3.             The following Section 6A is hereby added
to the Agreement:


 


“6A. DRAXIMAGE SALES
TO INDEPENDENT RADIOPHARMACIES.   In the event that Draximage sells the Product to an Independent
Radiopharmacy as permitted under the second paragraph of Section 2, any
such sale ***. In addition, for any such sale to an Independent Radiopharmacy,
Draximage shall ***


 





















 


Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the
Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First
Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


 


	
   

  	
  CARDINAL
  HEALTH 414, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Gordon Troop

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Gordon Troop

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  President, HPS

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DRAXIMAGE,
  INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Richard J. Flanagon

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:
  

  	
  Richard J. Flanagon

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
  

  	
  President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22
-0498

_________________ GREENER MONTANA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, TRAVIS MARTINEZ, Individually and KRISTYN MARTINEZ, Individually,

Plaintiffs and Appellees,
v. HYDI CUNNINGHAM,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 5 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s reply brief on appeal. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 24 2023

04/24/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0498
# C_2008116EN.01001701.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/17

---

Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-113/08)

(2008/C 116/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.A. Rabinal Suárez and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions and in particular the following: Article 17, Article 72, Article 22 to 25, Article 30, Article 33, Article 35, Article 40, Article 41, Article 43, Article 44, Article 50, Annexes I and II, Annex VII, and, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions and in particular the following: Article 17, Article 72, Article 22 to 25, Article 30, Article 33, Article 35, Article 40, Article 41, Article 43, Article 44, Article 50, Annexes I and II, Annex VII, and, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.

1

| — | order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/49/EC into national law expired on 31 December 2006.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 177, p. 201.

1

---
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICERREQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)AND SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002, 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of
Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis E. Bunday, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and                              
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and result of operations of the Company.

|/s/ DENNIS E. BUNDAY         
|-----------------------------
|Dennis E.
      Bunday       
|Chief Financial
      Officer
|Williams
      Controls, Inc 
|December 15,
      2009      

63

---
Order issued January 25, 2013

In The

Qtuurt uf pnats

3JTiftI! ktnrt øf ixa at Iattu

No. 05-11-01543-CR

ERIC GLENN BROWN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellec

ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, O’Neill, and Murphy

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the September 6, 2012 motion of

Kathleen A. Walsh for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to remove Kathleen A. Walsh as counsel of record for appellant. We

DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to

Eric Glenn Brown, No. 1760826, Torres Unit. 125 Private Road 4303, Hondo, Texas, 78861.

7—

DAVID L. BRIDGE

JUSTICE
# C_2021053EN.01003201.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — VW v Commission

(Case T-243/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Principle of proportionality)

(2021/C 53/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VW (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha and J. Steele, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 26 June 2017 dismissing the applicant’s application for a survivor’s pension and, in so far as is necessary, of the decision rejecting the complaint against that decision of 19 January 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 26 June 2017 dismissing VW’s application for a survivor’s pension; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 26 June 2017 dismissing VW’s application for a survivor’s pension;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by VW; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by VW;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of UnifyCorporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Peter J. DiCorti, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.

 

 
| Dated: September 10, 2004 | /s/ PETER  J. DICORTI   |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      | Peter J. DiCorti        |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

*A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained byUnify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.*

 

----
#### Kevin D. Bullis, Respondent, v American Motors Corporation, a Subsidiary of Chrysler Corporation, Appellant.

Levine, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Fischer, J.), entered January 16, 1991 in Broome County, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured on December 4,1987 when he was struck by an automobile designed, manufactured, distributed and/or sold by defendant. On December 3, 1990, plaintiff *536sought to commence an action against defendant by service of a summons with notice. Thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, claiming that the notice failed to adequately set forth the nature of the action. Supreme Court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

There should be an affirmance. CPLR 305 (b) provides in relevant part that "[i]f the complaint is not served with the summons, the summons shall contain or have attached thereto a notice stating the nature of the action and the relief sought”. The purpose of the CPLR 305 (b) notice is to provide the defendant with " 'at least basic information concerning the nature of [the] plaintiff’s claim and the relief sought’ ” *(Parker v Mack,*61 NY2d 114, 117, quoting 23d Ann Report of NY Jud Conf, at 273). Here, the notice stated, "The nature of this action is personal injury proximately caused by a defective product. The relief sought is money damages.” Under the circumstances of this case, it is our view that this description was clearly sufficient to apprise defendant of the nature of plaintiff’s action *(see, Rowell v Gould, Inc.,*124 AD2d 995, 996; *Esposito v Billings,*103 AD2d 956; *Skidmore v Carr,*89 AD2d 600, 601; *cf., Drummer v Valeron Corp.,*154 AD2d 897, *lv denied*75 NY2d 705). A liberal construction of the statutory requirement of the contents of the notice accompanying a summons served without a complaint is consistent with the general policy of the CPLR *(see,*CPLR 104). Defendant’s contention that plaintiff was required to specifically state his theory of recovery is unavailing since "absolute precision is not necessary” *(Viscosi v Merritt,*125 AD2d 814).

Mahoney, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
#### Rein Monroe Associates, Appellant-Respondent, v Royal Insurance Company of America et al., Respondents-Appellants.

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiff’s fourth and fifth causes of action. Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action seeks damages premised on alleged violations of Insurance Law § 2601, and its fifth cause of action seeks damages on a common-law theory of bad faith premised on the unfair claim settlement practices. Because Insurance Law § 2601 does not create a private right of action, the fourth cause of action should have been dismissed *(see, Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Chock Full O’Nuts Corp.,*86 AD2d 315, 316, *lv*
      *583
      *dismissed*58 NY2d 605, 800; *see also, Telemaque v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,*162 AD2d 444; *Dano v Royal Globe Ins. Co.,*89 AD2d 817, 818, *affd*59 NY2d 827). Moreover, both the fourth and fifth causes of action should have been dismissed because plaintiff failed to offer any proof to demonstrate a pattern of bad faith or unfair practices *(see, Dano v Royal Globe Ins. Co.,*59 NY2d 827; *Hubbell v Trans World Life Ins. Co.,*50 NY2d 899; *Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co.,*48 NY2d 906; *Belco Petroleum Corp. v AIG Oil Rig,*164 AD2d 583; *M.S.R. Assocs. v Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co.,*58 AD2d 858).

We have examined the other issues raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/02

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00253

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Tri al Court No. 2020

- 003896

- 1

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion



### L

ATASHA 

### H ARRIS 

### , Appellant

V



### . MJ AY 

### I NVESTORS 

### , LLC, BY ITS 

### A GENT 

### , S PECIALIZED 

### P ROPERTY 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### , Ap pellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On December 1, 2020, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See T ex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could
dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, appellant filed with

the court a n appellant ’ s brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the
brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b),
38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response. Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an
opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of

pr osecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : January 14, 2021
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 26, 2011

h0919 

# Order

September 26, 2011

143188



## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143188 COA: 303293 DESHAWN ANTONIO FOSTER, Kent CC: 09-004049-FC Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 27, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.