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

                                  EXHIBIT 99.3

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, dated the date
of this Certification (the "Report"), I, Craig F. Fortin, the 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 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: March 18, 2003                               /s/ Craig F. Fortin
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Craig F. Fortin
                                                   Senior Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

                                 End of Filing

                                       75
#### Karouzin Mardiros, Respondent, v Nabil Ghaly et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Same Memorandum as in *Mardiros v Ghaly*([appeal No. 1] 175 AD2d 680 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Baisley, J.— Reargument.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . 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.
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Treasure Mountain Holdings, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10- QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, George I. Norman,  III,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/   George I. Norman, III
-------------------------------
George I. Norman, III
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2004

     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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2019213EN.01003702.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/37

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-530/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Commission Implementing Decision - Notification to the addressee - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 213/39)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: C.-R Canțăr, E. Gane, C.-M. Florescu and O.-C Ichim, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J Aquilina and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29) in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by Romania.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Romania shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Romania shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---
# C_2008107EN.01001201.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2008 — Trade mark case: Bild.T-Online.de AG & Co. KG v President of the German Patent- und Markenamt

(Case C-39/08)

(2008/C 107/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Bild.T-Online.de AG & Co. KG v President of the German Patent- und Markenamt

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 3 of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1), which seeks to secure equality of opportunity in matters of competition, require that identical or similar applications be treated in the same way? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 3 of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1), which seeks to secure equality of opportunity in matters of competition, require that identical or similar applications be treated in the same way?

1

| 2. | If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to investigate specific indications of unequal treatment which distorts competition and, in so doing, to take account, in its analysis, of earlier decisions of the competent authority in similar cases? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to investigate specific indications of unequal treatment which distorts competition and, in so doing, to take account, in its analysis, of earlier decisions of the competent authority in similar cases?

| 3. | If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to take account of the prohibition of discrimination having the effect of distorting competition when interpreting and applying Article 3 of Directive 89/104 if it has established discrimination of that nature? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to take account of the prohibition of discrimination having the effect of distorting competition when interpreting and applying Article 3 of Directive 89/104 if it has established discrimination of that nature?

| 4. | If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, in order to prevent distortion of competition, must it be possible under national legislation for the national authority to be placed under an obligation to initiate, of its own motion, an action for the annulment of trade marks which have previously been wrongly registered? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, in order to prevent distortion of competition, must it be possible under national legislation for the national authority to be placed under an obligation to initiate, of its own motion, an action for the annulment of trade marks which have previously been wrongly registered?

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 119 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(a) of House Resolution 
747, the Journal of the last day's proceedings is approved.

                          ____________________
```
#### Sheldon H. Solow, Appellant, v Irving Liebman, Re*121spondent.

— In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 for a determination of title to real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), dated October 3, 1989, which denied his motion for a preliminary injunction, *inter alia,*barring the defendant from removing certain trees and bushes from a piece of property, and erecting a decorative wall on that property, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for a preliminary mandatory injunction compelling the plaintiff to remove the trees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Sheldon Solow commenced this action seeking a determination pursuant to RPAPL article 15 that certain real property to which the defendant Irving Liebman held legal title, was vested in him by reason of adverse possession. In addition, by an amended complaint, the appellant sought a declaratory judgment that he possessed an easement of way over Lot Avenue, a mapped road which leads to Lily Pond Lane, a public road.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we find that the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion for a preliminary mandatory injunction to compel the plaintiff to remove a row of trees that he placed over a portion of Lot Avenue. The facts establish that the plaintiff had no right, as a matter of law, to place the trees on any purported access easement he may enjoy over Lot Avenue *(see, West Side Elec. Co. v Consolidated Tel. & Elec. Subway Co.,*87 App Div 551). The rights of an easement holder are measured by the purpose and character of the easement. The owner cannot materially increase the burden of the servient estate or impose new and additional burdens on the servient estate *(see,*49 NY Jur, Easements, § 114). While the plaintiff has established that he may enjoy an easement of way over Lot Avenue, this easement would only entitle him to travel upon Lot Avenue. The placement of trees over Lot Avenue has no relation to his alleged right of way over Lot Avenue.

Further, the plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient proof of irreparable injury and a balancing of the equities in his favor to support his motion for a preliminary injunction to bar the defendant from constructing a decorative wall in a portion of Lot Avenue *(see, Grant Co. v Srogi,*52 NY2d 496; *Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp.,*70 AD2d 1021; *Albini v Solork Assocs.,*37 AD2d 835). We note that since the plaintiff failed to secure a stay of enforcement of this part of the order pending the determination of this appeal, the defendant has since erected the decorative wall. While there *122remains a factual dispute as to whether the plaintiff possesses an access easement of way over Lot Avenue, it appears that the defendant can easily take down the decorative wall should the plaintiff prevail. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Lawrence and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### Carl C. SMITH, Plaintiff in Error, v. INTERSTATE SECURITIES COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.

No. 36670.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 7, 1955.

*198William D. Fore,’- Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Robert L. Cox, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice.

The parties herein will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

Plaintiff, Interstate Securities Company, a corporation, brought an action against Carl C. Smith to recover the balance on a promissory note. Defendant for his answer to plaintiff’s petition stated that he had theretofore paid the obligation sued upon by the plaintiff and that same was fully paid prior to the filing of plaintiff’s petition and prayed that plaintiff take nothing. Plaintiff demurred to the answer on the grounds that it did not state fácts sufficient to constitute a defense in favor of the defendant to the plaintiff’s petition, which demurrer was sustained. Defendant elected to stand upon the sufficiency of his answer and refused to plead further, whereupon the court entered judgment for plaintiff, allowing exceptions and defendant appeals.

Defendant admits the correctness of plaintiff’s contention that prior payment of an obligation sued upon is an affirmative defense, and must be expressly pleaded, but contends that his answer met the test of that rule, and, consequently, the trial court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer. We agree.

The rule applicable herein was stated in Cummins v. Morris, 182 Okl. 122, 76 P.2d 897, 898, as follows:

> “It is true that payment must be specially pleaded. Turning to the answer filed by defendant we find the following: ‘Further answering said first cause of action, *defendant states that he has fidly paid and satisfied said note cmd the endorsement thereon.’ Clearly*' *this is a plea ■ of payment.*Plaintiff does not- - contend that it is .defective for wapt-of particularity, and, if ■ he ’did, such contention- would be wrong, fqr -a *simple affirmative allegation is sufficient, to. raise the issue cmd render evidence admissible thereunder.*Moore v. Continental Gin Co., 70 Okl. 202, 173 P. 809.” (Emphasis ours.)

■ For reasons stated, the cause is reversed and remanded with directions for further proceedings in accord with the-views herein expressed.

WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and CORN, HALLEY, BLACKBIRD and JACKSON, JJ., concur.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 08816

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name Description

x 08816\08816_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08816\08816_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

08816\08816_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08816\08816_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08816\08816_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08816\08816_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08816\08816_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08816\08816_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08816\08816_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08816\Supplemental Documents\08816_Flow Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08816\Supplemental Documents\08816_Silas Ray Power Plant.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 10-K/A
Amendment No. 1

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001

Commission file number 333-61783

Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.,
Corporate Lease-Backed Certificates Series 1999-CLF1
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of  incorporation or organization)

3671416
(I.R.S. Employer  Identification No.)

245 Park Avenue,  New York, New York
(Address of principal executive offices)

10167
(Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  (212) 272-2000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.
           Yes [X]       No  [ ]


This Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A amend Iem 14 of the original Form 10-K
which was filed on March XX, 2002.




      Item 14.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules, and Reports on Form 8-K.

	(a)	Exhibits

		(99.1)	Annual Independent Accountant's Servicing Report

		(99.2)	Annual Statement of Compliance

		(99.3)	Report of Management on Compliance with Minimum Servicing
			Standards

	(b) 	Reports on Form 8-K were filed during the last quarter of 2001 in order to provide
statements for the monthly distributions to investors on September 27, 2001
October 24, 2001, November 27, 2001, and December 26, 2001.



				SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

LaSalle Bank National Association, in its
capacity as Trustee under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement on behalf of
Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.,
Corporate Lease-Backed Certificates Series 1999-CLF1
(Registrant)


By:	/s/  	Cynthia Reis
	---------------------------
		Cynthia Reis
		First Vice President

Date:	May 29, 2002
# I n the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

GERALDINE JONES

, * No. 13

- 786 V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

v. * Filed: February 11, 2015

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

* respondent does not object.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Kate Westad

, Lommen Abdo, P.A., Minneapolis, MN , for Petitioner;

Lindsay Corliss

, U.S. Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On February 10, 2015 , respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above

- captioned matter. Previously, petitioner

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent

for review. Upon review of peti tioner’s application, respondent raised objections

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her

application to request $21,000.00, an amount to which respondent does not object.

The Court awards this amount.

On October 9, 20 13

, Geraldine Jones filed a petition for compensation

alleging that the influenza vaccine, which she received on October 13, 2010

, caused her to develop immune

- mediated thrombocytopenic purpura (“ITP”).

Petitioner received compensation based upon the part ies’ stipulation. Decision

, filed Jan. 14, 2015 . Because petitioner received compensation, she is entitled to an

award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b),

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d) (4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Petitioner seeks a total of $21,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states

that she incurred no out

- of

- pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim.

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Afte r reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $21,000.0 0 in the form of a check made payable to

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Kate Westad , for attorneys’ fees

and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357

-

6353.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master