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



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ J. Chris BrewsterJ. Chris BrewsterChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)April 2, 2007
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-481 and 731-TA-1190 (Second Review)]

## Determinations

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted these reviews on February 1, 2024 (89 FR 6550) and determined on May 6, 2024 that it would conduct expedited reviews (89 FR 48442, June 6, 2024).

                    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on September 20, 2024. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5546 (September 2024), entitled                     *Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-481 and 731 TA 1190 (Second Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: September 20, 2024.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2024-21988 Filed 9-25-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### Park Sheraton Corporation, Plaintiff, *v.*Arthur Grasso, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

May 6, 1958.

*640
      *Monroe Goldwater*and *Robert Conrad*for plaintiff.

*Leo Kotler*and *Herbert Schiff*for defendant.

*Aron*Steueb, J.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff is the owner of a hotel and the defendant is a tenant, operating a barbershop in the hotel pursuant to a lease. The complaint further alleges that defendant solicited and encouraged the patronage in the barbershop of notorious underworld characters. It is alleged that this is a breach of the lease amounting to a forfeiture but that defendant has refused to give up his lease. For this plaintiff seeks damages. The second cause of action pleads the same facts as constituting a breach of a covenant of the lease and seeks damages for that breach.

On the first cause of action the parties have argued various matters in reference to the sufficiency of the pleading. None of these has significance in the face of the patent fault in the complaint. The gravamen of the complaint is that defendant having forfeited his lease has failed to remove himself from the premises. Plaintiff claims to have been damaged by this. But no facts are alleged to show how it has been damaged. There is no allegation that plaintiff is being deprived of the rental value of the demised premises. Eviction is not sought nor a declaration of the right to evict. No damage at all is shown from the failure to evacuate.

*641As regards the second cause of action the lease contains a clause that the tenant will conduct its business in the demised premises in a suitable manner considering that the premises are part of a high-class hotel. Defendant argues that as a barbershop, defendant could not legally refuse to serve any patron that might come in. (Civil Rights Law, § 40.) But the breach complained of is not serving that kind of patron but soliciting and encouraging his patronage. It is at least arguable that such a manner of doing business is not suitable for a hotel.

It follows that the first cause of action is bad, the second good. Plaintiff argues that as the motion is directed to the complaint as a whole it must therefore be denied. And there is respectable authority for that contention *(Advance Music Corp.*v. *American Tobacco Co.,*296 N. Y. 79). However, to avoid unnecessary repetitive motions this motion will be considered as one to dismiss each of the causes of action separately. Accordingly, it will be granted as to the first and denied as to the second with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint, if so advised, on or before May 12, 1958 on payment of $10 costs.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80275-80276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22642]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 2, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 356 to Competitive Product List. Documents

[[Page 80276]]

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-714, K2024-7.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22642 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit
31.2 DISABOOM,
INC.CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER I,
John Walpuck, certify that: 1.          I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Disaboom, Inc. 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 small business issuer
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.          The
small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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; andc)          Disclosed
  in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control
  over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers
  most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter
  in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
  reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
  control over financial reporting; and 5.          The
small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer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 small business issuers ability to record, process,
  summarize, and report financial information; andb)          any
  fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
  who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control
  over financial reporting. Date: November 14, 2007 /s/ John WalpuckChief
  Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.16

                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      WHEREAS,  ERNEST  J.  SEWELL  ("Employee")  and  the  Board  of  Directors
(collectively, the "Board") of FNB FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION ("FNB") and it
wholly-owned banking subsidiary,  FNB SOUTHEAST,  ("Bank") (FNB and the Bank are
collectively referred to herein as the "Company"),  desire to provide an orderly
and clear process for management succession; and

      WHEREAS,  the Board and Employee desire to begin such process immediately;
and

      WHEREAS,   the  Company   acknowledges   the  Employee's   leadership  and
substantial  contributions to the Company's  success and desires to benefit from
his knowledge and experience in management succession process.

      NOW, THEREFORE,  the parties hereby amend the Employment Agreement between
Employee  and the  Company,  dated as of May 18,  1995  ("Agreement")  and first
amended as of May 16, 2002 ("First Amendment"), as follows:

      1.    The parties affirm the provisions of the First Amendment,

      2.    The text of Section 3 of the  Agreement is deleted and the following
            text is inserted in lieu and stead thereof:

            Effective as of July 1, 2004,  the Employee shall serve as President
            and Chief Executive  Officer of FNB Financial  Services  Corporation
            ("FNB") and Chief Executive  Officer of FNB Southeast  ("Bank").  In
            his role as  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer  of FNB,  the
            Employee's  duties and  responsibilities  shall be those  imposed by
            applicable  law, and in his role as Chief  Executive  Officer of the
            Bank,  his duties  and  responsibilities  shall be those  imposed by
            applicable law, and duties  commensurate with his office that may be
            from time to time assigned to the Employee by the Company's Board of
            Directors.

      3.    Except  as  specifically   amended  by  this  Second   Amendment  to
            Employment  Agreement,  the  Agreement,  as  amended  by  the  First
            Amendment, continues in full force and effect.

This Second  Amendment  To  Employment  Agreement  is entered into as of May 19,
2004.


/s/ ERNEST J. SEWELL
-----------------------------------------
Ernest J. Sewell


FNB FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION


By:  /s/ BARRY Z. DODSON
   --------------------------------------
     Barry Z. Dodson
     Chairman of the Board of Directors


FNB SOUTHEAST


By:  /s/ BARRY Z. DODSON
   --------------------------------------
     Barry Z. Dodson
     Chairman of the Board of Directors


                                       22
# C_2023138EN.01000101.xml

| 21.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/1

---

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 13 April 2023

to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Nationale Bank van België/Banque Nationale de Belgique

(ECB/2023/10)

(2023/C 138/01)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

| (2) | The mandate of the Nationale Bank van België/Banque Nationale de Belgique’s current external auditors, Mazars Réviseurs d’Entreprises/Mazars Bedrijfsrevisoren SCRL/CVBA, ended following the audit for the financial year 2022. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2023. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The mandate of the Nationale Bank van België/Banque Nationale de Belgique’s current external auditors, Mazars Réviseurs d’Entreprises/Mazars Bedrijfsrevisoren SCRL/CVBA, ended following the audit for the financial year 2022. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2023.

| (3) | The Nationale Bank van België/Banque Nationale de Belgique has selected KPMG Bedrijfsrevisoren/KPMG Réviseurs d’Entreprises BV/SRL as its external auditors for the financial years 2023 to 2028, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Nationale Bank van België/Banque Nationale de Belgique has selected KPMG Bedrijfsrevisoren/KPMG Réviseurs d’Entreprises BV/SRL as its external auditors for the financial years 2023 to 2028,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that KPMG Bedrijfsrevisoren/KPMG Réviseurs d’Entreprises BV/SRL should be appointed as the external auditors of the Nationale Bank van België/Banque Nationale de Belgique for the financial years 2023 to 2028.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 13 April 2023.

The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     Amounts in thousands

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0001013844

<NAME>                        Colonial Realty Limited Partnership

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.0
<CASH>                                         2,673
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         1,853,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (243,637)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,930,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    225,000
<COMMON>                                       221,670
<OTHER-SE>                                     288,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,930,655
<SALES>                                        218,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               218,787
<CGS>                                          118,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,629)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             52,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                53,044
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            53,044
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (418)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   37,766
<EPS-BASIC>                                    1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.15



</TABLE>
# C_2022139EN.01000101.xml

| 29.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10593 – DUSSUR / SeAH / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 139/01)

On 16 March 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10593. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10593. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### RHODES et al. v. TWING et al.

No. 1486-5753.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

July 22, 1931.

See, also, 118 Tex. 410, 16 S.W.(2d) 258.

Todd & Pipkin, Jack M. Moore, and Oliver J. Todd, all of Beaumont, and Sanders & Sanders and E. H. Carter, all of Center, for plaintiffs.

W. M. Harris, of Dallas, Lightfoot, Robertson & Scurlock, of Fort Worth, Packard, Barnes & McCaughey, of Chicago, Ill., and J. P. Anderson and E. B. Lewis, both of Center, for defendants.

HARVEY, P. J.

This suit was brought by William H. Rhodes and others against the county judge and county commissioners of Shelby county, in their official capacity, and against A. F. Reichman and numerous other persons who purchased and now hold certain road bonds of road district No. 4 of said county. The purpose of the suit was to annul the bonds held by Reichman and others, and to enjoin the county officials from levying and collecting taxes for the payment of said bonds. The trial court rendered judgment annulling the bonds, and granting the injunction sought. That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 24 S.W.(2d) 728. The application for writ of error filed by Rhodes and others, and that filed by Reichman and others, were both granted.

While the case was pending in the Court of Civil Appeals, the question as to the validity of the bonds in controversy came before us, under a certificate from that court. At that time, we reached the conclusion that the bonds had become valid. The reasons upon which this conclusion was based are set out in the opinion then filed, which is reported in 118 Tex. at page 410, 16 S.W.(2d) 258. We adhere to that opinion. The bonds in controversy are valid.

An examination of the record before us discloses that Reichman and the other bondholders bought the bonds in open market, in good faith, and paid value therefor. They are holders in due course.

We recommend that the judgment of the trial court and that of the Court of Civii'Ap-peals be reversed, and that judgment be here rendered to the effect that the plaintiffs in error, William H. Rhodes and othérs, take nothing by their suit. 1 '

CURETON, C. J.

Judgments of the district court,and Court ■of Civil Appeals are both reversed,,and judgments here rendered for the defendants in error, E. L. Twing et al., as recommended by the Commission of Appeals.