alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.1



906 Certification



Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20549



Ladies and Gentlemen:



The
certificate set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004, (the Report) for the purpose of complying with the Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Lu Yiping, the Chairman of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respect, the financial condition and results of operations of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company
Limited.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: June 27, 2005



By:

/s/ Lu YipingName:

Lu YipingTitle:

Chairman
# C_2008092EN.01004202.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/42

---

Action brought on 13 February 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Prosima Comercial (PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A.)

(Case T-71/08)

(2008/C 92/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Promat GmbH (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Beckmann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Prosima Comercial SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in Case R 574/2007-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in Case R 574/2007-2;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Prosima Comercial SA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A. for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, 20, 22, 35 to 39, 41 and 42 (Application No 2 423 176)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Promat GmbH

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark PROMINA for goods and services in Class 7 (German trade mark No 847 011)

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was incorrect to take as a basis that the goods were not similar.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).

1

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 446 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric 

project. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2017 

Mr. GRIFFITH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction 

of a hydroelectric project. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period 

5 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En7 ergy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12737, the 

8 Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the 

9 project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with 

10 the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requireVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:48 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H446.IH H446

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 446 IH

1 ments of that section and the Commission’s procedures 

2 under that section, extend the time period during which 

3 the licensee is required to commence the construction of 

4 the project for up to 3 consecutive 2-year periods from 

5 the date of the expiration of the extension originally issued 

6 by the Commission. 

7 (b) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the 

8 period required for commencement of construction of the 

9 project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the 

10 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission may 

11 reinstate the license for the project effective as of the date 

12 of its expiration and the first extension authorized under 

13 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of such expira14 tion. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2009006EN.01001703.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/17

---

Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-504/08)

(2009/C 6/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (1) of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (1) of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 thereof;

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 bringing national law into conformity with Directive 2006/70/EC expired on 15 December 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29.

1

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

         In connection with the Report of Matrix Concepts, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the for the three months ended March 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, ,
Chief Executive Officer 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; 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/ Gary Martin
----------------------------------
Gary Martin
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
February 10, 2006


                                       18
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1395-E1396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     IN RECOGNITION OF THE SERVICE OF KRISTINE J. MICHALSON TO THE 
               CONSTITUENTS OF COLORADO'S FIFTH DISTRICT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG LAMBORN

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I announce 
the departure of a valued member of my staff, Kristine J. Michalson. 
Words are not adequate to express how much she will be missed.
   For the past four years, Kristine has professionally and 
enthusiastically served the constituents of the Fifth Congressional 
District of Colorado as my Legislative Assistant and Press Secretary. 
She successfully handled her duties with a wealth of knowledge of the 
legislative and procedural processes. Her dedication and work ethic 
will be very difficult to replace.
   Beginning her career on the Hill as my Staff Assistant and Deputy 
Press Secretary, she faithfully carried out her duties and was promoted 
to handle a variety of issue areas. She has particularly aided me in 
the area of Foreign Affairs, focusing on Israel and the Middle

[[Page E1396]]

East. Because I am co-chair of two Israel caucuses, she has coordinated 
various briefings and meetings on my behalf.
   Kristine graduated from Grove City College in December, 2007 with a 
Bachelor of Arts in History and certification in Secondary Education 
Social Science.
   She is the daughter of Richard and Berit Michalson of Ramsey, New 
Jersey, and is sister to Jacob and Andrew. She has worked hard for the 
people of Colorado. Her conservative and Christian values are needed 
today more than ever. So while I will miss her and her contribution 
greatly, I know that she will provide great service to our country in 
the future. I truly believe God will bless her in her future endeavors.

                          ____________________
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 4, 2022

No. 04-22-00349-CV

Scott Ralph WHEELOCK aka Scott Wheelock, et al.,

Appellant

v.

KERR COUNTY, Headwaters Groudwater Conservation District, Kerr County Emergency 

Services District #2, Kerr County Lateral Roads, Upper Guadalupe River Authority, Harper 

Independent School District,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21317A

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was initially due on August 24, 2022 but was not filed. On September 

12, 2022, we ordered appellant to file his brief by September 29, 2022. On September 29, 2022,

appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief and on September 30, 2022 

appellant filed his brief. Appellant’s brief arrived within the window of time permitted under the 

mailbox rule, rendering it timely filed. We therefore DENY AS MOOT appellant’s motion for 

extension of time.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of October, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
# Lauderdale - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments Executive Director Keith Jones Email &#x6b;&#106;&#111;n&#x65;&#x73;&#64;n&#x61;&#x63;&#111;l&#x67;&#x2e;&#111;r&#x67;The post Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20512]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

Notice of Proposed Methodology for the Delaware River and Bay 
Integrated List Water Quality Assessment

AGENCY: Delaware River Basin Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the methodology proposed to be 
used in the 2012 Delaware River and Bay Integrated List Water Quality 
Assessment is available for review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by close of business on 
August 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments will be accepted via e-mail to 
john.yagecic@drbc.state.nj.us; via fax to 609-883-9522; by U.S. Mail to 
DRBC, Attn: Water Quality Assessment 2012, P.O. Box 7360, West Trenton, 
NJ 08628-0360; via private carrier to DRBC, Attn: Integrated Assessment 
2012, 25 State Police Drive, West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360; or by hand. 
All submissions should have the phrase ``Water Quality Assessment 
2012'' in the subject line and should include the name, address (street 
address optional) and affiliation, if any, of the commenter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Yagecic, Supervisor, 
Standards and Assessment Section, DRBC Modeling, Monitoring and 
Assessment Branch, via e-mail to john.yagecic@drbc.state.nj.us or by 
telephone to 609-883-9500, ext. 271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Delaware River Basin Commission 
(``DRBC'' or ``Commission'') is an interstate and federal compact 
agency that was created in 1961 by concurrent legislation of the States 
of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
and the United States Government for purpose of jointly managing the 
water resources of the Delaware River Basin.
    DRBC currently is compiling data for the 2012 Delaware River and 
Bay Water Quality Assessment Report required by the federal Clean Water 
Act (``CWA''). The 2012 Assessment will present the extent to which 
waters of the Delaware River and Bay are attaining designated uses in 
accordance with Section 305(b) of the CWA and the Commission's Water 
Quality Regulations (18 CFR part 410) and will identify impaired 
waters, which consist of waters that exceed surface water quality 
standards.
    The assessment methodology to be used in the 2012 Assessment is 
available for review at the following url: http://www.state.nj.gov/drbc/Methodology-WQAssess-draft_July2011.pdf.

    Dated: August 8, 2011.
Pamela M. Bush, Esquire,
Commission Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20512 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6360-01-P
```
#### TROSPER v. BRAY et al.

No. 35528.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 14, 1953.

B. S. Null, Hartshorne, for plaintiff in error.

Bell & Tucker, McAlester, for defendants in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

This is an appeal by I. C. Trosper from an adverse judgment entered in an action to quiet title. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial and appeals from the order overruling the. same.

A motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed and must be sustained on jurisdictional grounds.

 As pointed out by the defendants in their brief the order overruling the motion for new trial is not in the record. Only a mere recital of the clerk’s minutes to the effect that the motion for new trial was overruled appears of record. This minute is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction to review the proported appeal. We have held that in order to review the appeal from an order overruling the motion for new trial the order must be in the record. Bigpond v. Davis, 121 Okl. 44, 247 P. 676; Lillard v. Meisberger, 113 Okl. 228, 240 P. 1067; Morris v. Caulk, 44 Okl. 342, 144 P. 623; Bell v. Board of Com’rs of Craig County, 182 Okl. 390, 77 P.2d 1120; Russell v. Motor Mortgage Co., 154 Okl. 49, 6 P.2d 820.

In Bigpond v. Davis, supra, it is stated:

> “Where the record does not contain an order of the court overruling a motion for a new trial, a mere recital therein- transcribed from the clerk’s minutes is not sufficient to bring the appeal before this court for review.”

Appeal dismissed.
Advisory Agreement Letter


 Exhibit 10.12 
  

					
	

	  	 Two American Lane
 P.O. Box 5150
 Greenwich, Connecticut
 06831-8150
	  	 Tel 203.861.1031
 Fax 203.552.1501

	  	  
 Joseph J.
Allessie
 Senior Vice President
 General Counsel
	  	 

  
 September 14, 2004 
  
 John W. Henry
& Company, Inc 
 Attn: General Counsel/Secretary 
 301 Yamato Road, Suite 2200 
 Boca Raton, FL 
  
 Re: Advisory Agreements for
PB Diversified Futures Fund LP, Diversified Futures Trust II, PB International Futures Fund B 
  
 Please be advised that it is anticipated that as of October 1, 2004, all the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. and Seaport Futures Management, Inc.,
(together the “Prudential Managing Owners”) of the above stated Trusts/Fund are owned by Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. f/k/a Kenmar Advisory Corp. (the “Kenmar Managing Owner”). Therefore, with respect to the various
advisory agreements currently in effect by and between the Trusts/Fund, the Prudential Managing Owner and you, please be notified that the Kenmar Managing Owner has assumed the liabilities and obligations of the Prudential Managing Owner thereunder
and will continue to satisfy and perform all liabilities and obligations thereunder. 
  
 The Kenmar Managing Owner will continue to operate per the existing advisory agreements. If this is acceptable, please sign both copies of this Letter Agreement and return one copy. 
  

			
	 PREFERRED INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS CORP.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Joseph J. Allessie


	 Name:
	 	 Joseph J. Allessie

	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President, General Counsel

	
	 ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

	
	 JOHN W. HENRY & COMPANY, INC

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David M. Kozak


	 Name:
	 	 David M. Kozak

	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President

	 	 	 General Counsel, Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Sandore, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by refusing to strike the testimony of a police investigator who destroyed *Rosario*material. Police Investigator Pieklik interviewed defendant shortly after his arrest, made notes of the interview and prepared a written report based, in part, upon those notes. Thereafter, the investigator destroyed his notes.

Clearly, "a right sense of justice” entitles a defendant to inspect the prior statements of a prosecution witness relating to the subject matter of that witness’s testimony prior to cross-examination *(People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286, 289, *rearg denied*9 NY2d 908, *cert denied*368 US 866, *rearg denied*14 NY2d 876, 15 NY2d 765; *see, People v Ranghelle,*69 NY2d 56, 62; *People v Quinones,*139 AD2d 404, 406, *affd*73 NY2d 988), and the notes and reports of a police officer have been specifically included as *Rosario*material since 1965 *(see, People v Malinsky,*15 NY2d 86, 90-91). Where *Rosario*material has been lost or destroyed by reason of the People’s failure "to exercise care to preserve it and defendant is prejudiced by their mistake, the court must impose an appropriate sanction” *(People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937, 940). We conclude, however, that the investigator’s failure to preserve the notes did not, under the circumstances of this case, cause any prejudice to defendant. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to impose any sanction *(cf., People v Wallace,*76 NY2d 953, 955).

Defendant’s conviction of burglary in the first degree and burglary in the second degree is supported by legally sufficient evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Further, the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *661
      *(see, People v Bleakley, supra).*Finally, the sentence imposed did not constitute an abuse of discretion. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
# C_2014184EN.01004702.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/47

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014 — Michel v ETF

(Case F-88/08 RENV)

2014/C 184/80

Language of the case: French

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

---
Summary of HMEC Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.11 
  
 Summary of Horace Mann Educators Corporation Non-Employee Director Compensation 
  

			
	 Compensation Element

	  	 Amount


	Chairman Annual Retainer	  	$75,000
	Board Member Annual Retainer	  	$25,000
	Board Meeting Fee	  	$1,500/live or telephonic meeting
	Committee Chair Retainer	  	$4,000/committee (audit chair is $7,500)
	Committee Meeting Fee	  	$1,000/meeting ($1,500 for audit; $2,500 for audit chair)
	Deferred Fees	  	Deferred fees in the form of common stock equivalents units include a 25% matching addition.
	Stock Ownership Guidelines	  	2x annual cash retainer within 5 years; must retain all restricted shares (net of taxes) until guideline is met

  
 Retainer fees are paid in May of each
year. The retainer fees are prorated to the extent that a non-employee director joins the Board after May.
================================================================================

                                  Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Tari Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2006 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 his knowledge:



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:  March 13, 2007


/s/ Theodore Tsagkaris

------------------------------
Theodore Tsagkaris
Secretary, Treasurer & C.F.O.
(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)