alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004201EN.01001402.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du travail de Liège (9th Chamber), by a judgment of that court of 7 June 2004 in the case of Office national de l'emploi against Ioannis Ioannidis

(Case C-258/04)

(2004/C 201/28)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du travail de Liège, (9th Chamber) (Higher Labour Court, 9th Chamber, Liège), Belgium, of 7 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Office national de l'emploi against Ioannis loannidis on the following question:

th

th

Is it contrary to Community law (in particular Articles 12, 17 and 18 of the EC Treaty) for rules of a Member State (such as, in Belgium, the Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 on unemployment) which provide for a tideover allowance to be given to a job seekers who are (in principle) less than 30 years old on the basis of the secondary education they have completed to apply to job seekers who are nationals of another Member State the condition, applicable equally to its own nationals, that the allowance is granted only if the required education has been completed in an educational establishment run, subsidised or recognised by one of the three national Communities (as laid down in the Royal Decree by Article 36(1)1(2)(a)), with the result that the tideover allowance is refused in the case of a young job seeker who is not a member of the family of a migrant worker, but who is a national of another Member State in which, before moving within the Union, he had pursued and completed secondary education, recognised as equivalent to the education required by the authorities of the State in which the application for the tideover allowance has been made?

---
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 on Form 10-Q of Vsource, Inc. (the registrant) for the quarter ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), I, Dennis M. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:



| | (1) | The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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 registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: June 14, 2004



|    |  |                              
|--- |  | -----------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Dennis M. Smith          
|    |  | Dennis M. Smith              
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|    |  | (Principal Financial Officer)



This certification accompanies this
report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the registrant for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it
by reference.
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Road , Conservation Cover, Diversion, Grassed Waterway, Integrated Pest Management, Nutrient Management, Residue and Tillage Management, Mulch Till, Residue and Tillage Management, No Till/Strip Till/Direct Seed, Residue and Tillage Management, Ridge Till, Residue Management, Seasonal, Underground Outlet.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
*February*5, *1935.*

#### Poplawski, Appellant, vs. Arnold Electric Company and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Wallace Ingalls, Walter E. Anderson,*and *Foley & Brack,*all of Racine.

For the respondents Arnold Electric Company and George C. Schmitz: *Hand & Quinn*of Racine.

For the respondent Russell A. Blish: *Vilas H. Whaley*of Racine.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19-0694
RICHARD D.REINERT,JR.,

Petitioner and Appellant,
v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. 

# FfUfs' ,D OCT 1 3 2020 CI( , • ORDER Court

On September 8, 2020, we issued an opinion in the above-entitled action, affirming the District Court's dismissal of Reinert's petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Reinert v. State, 2020 MT 226N. Reinert has petitioned for rehearing. The State objects. M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a) provides that a petition for rehearing will be considered only when the Court "overlooked some fact material to the decision," when "it overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case,"or when "its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by the Court. Having fully considered Reinert's petition, we conclude that rehearing is not warranted under the standards ofM.R.App.P.20(1)(a). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mail copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord. DATED this 

## /3 day ofOctober,2020.

ChiefJustice 10/13/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0694
#### Lloyd ROMERO, Appellant, v. H. A. COX, Warden of the New Mexico State Penitentiary, Appellee.

No. 8005.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 23, 1965.

Donald L. Dill, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

L. D. Harris, Sp. Asst. Atty Gen., Albuquerque, N. M. (Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen. of New Mexico, on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Romero is serving a sentence in the New Mexico State Penitentiary. He brought this habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, alleging that his state sentence is void because he was not represented by counsel at a preliminary hearing before a New Mexico magistrate. He was represented by counsel thereafter. He pleaded not guilty in the state district court and was convicted by a jury. The question raised has been settled in cases presenting the identical question. Gallegos v. Cox, 10 Cir., 341 F.2d 107; Downing v. New Mexico Supreme Court, 10 Cir., 339 F.2d 435; Lark and Stewart v. Cox, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d 947. Romero’s contention that he was denied a constitutional right at the preliminary hearing because he was required to plead to the charge without an attorney is without merit. No facts are alleged which show any prejudice because of this plea. Gallegos v. Cox, supra. Pointer v. State of Texas, 85 S.Ct. 1065, is not to the contrary.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------


Certification  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

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

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of Vision  Global  Solutions,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2006,  as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Jean-Paul  Ouellette,  Chief  Executive  Officer o and President of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 13, 2006

                                    /s/ Jean-Paul Ouellette
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Jean-Paul Ouellette, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                              193,996
<SECURITIES>                         10,637
<RECEIVABLES>                       342,005
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                       3,702,539
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  4,306,147
<PP&E>                            1,445,604
<DEPRECIATION>                      201,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    5,792,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             2,252,207
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              2,612
<OTHER-SE>                        2,726,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      5,792,715
<SALES>                           1,390,883
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,591,791
<CGS>                             1,425,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     2,540,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     (3,268)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 (104,915)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (962,019)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (962,019)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      (962,019)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 11
 
                     INNOVASIVE DEVICES, INC.

   Statement Regarding Computation of Net Loss Per Common Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                 Three months ended
                                                     March 31,
                                              ------------------------
                                                   1997          1996
                                              ----------   ----------- 
                                                    (unaudited)
 
<S>                                           <C>          <C>
Net loss                                      $ (873,000)  $(1,147,000)
                                              ==========   ============
 
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding:
 
  a.   Shares attributable to common         
         stock outstanding                     7,260,870     1,812,015 
 
  b.   Shares attributable to mandatorily
         convertible preferred stock                         3,518,255
 
  c.   Shares attributable to common stock 
       options pursuant to SAB 83                              126,438
                                              ----------   ----------- 
Weighted average common shares outstanding     7,260,870     5,456,708
                                              ==========   ===========
 
Net loss per share                            $    (0.12)  $      (0.21)
                                              ==========   ============
 
</TABLE>
*June 2, 1936.*

#### Richards, Appellant, vs. C. H. Fintel Company and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Scott Lowry*and *Lockney •& Lowry,*attorneys, and *Richard N. Hunter*of counsel, all of Wauke-sha.

For the respondents : *Frame ■& Blackstone*of Waukesha..

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
**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 connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Dennis D. Oklak, President and Chief Operating Officer of the General Partner,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/         Dennis  D. Oklak |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Dennis D.  Oklak                                                          |
|   | President  and Chief Operating                                            |
|   | Officer of  the General Partner                                           |
|   | May 13, 2003                                                              |

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provide toDarell E. Zink, Jr., Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the General Partner and will be retained by Mr. Zink andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6962

MARTINEZ ORLANDIS BLACK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:23-cv-00400-RJC)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martinez Orlandis Black, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6962 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Martinez Orlandis Black appeals the district court’s order dismissing, without 

prejudice, Black’s “Writ of Mandamus” as duplicative. We have reviewed the record and 

discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Black v.

United States, No. 3:23-cv-00400-RJC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2023). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6962 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#  Two-Column Page Band Widgets  

----

### Background Image Left Text Right Band Widget

**Background Image Left Text Right Band**

----

### Text Left Background Image Right Widget

**Text Left Background Image Right**

### **Add your text here.**

# NRC Style Guide Pages

### NRC Style Guide

### Band Widgets

### Card Widgets

### Form Widgets

### Hero, Image and Map Widgets

### Sidebar Widgets

### Specialty Widgets

### Two Column Page Band Widgets

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 06, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1998
<CASH>                                           7,309
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                       240
<INVENTORY>                                     19,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,439
<PP&E>                                          18,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,447
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,729
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,274
<SALES>                                        111,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,108
<CGS>                                          105,369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    215
<INCOME-TAX>                                        81
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                134
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       134
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Cable Response to Live Fire (CAROLFIRE) (NUREG/CR-6931)

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

----

[1]*Volumes 1 and 2 of NUREG/CR-6931 each included a CD-ROM containing related files, as identified above.*

[2]*The photographs taken during the CAROLFIRE tests are not intended to provide detailed test documentation. Rather, they provide a generic representation of the facilities used, the cables tested, and the appearance of those cables (both before and after the tests), as they were installed in the facilities. Where specific photographs directly relate to a particular test, the description indicates the test number, consistent with that used in NUREG/CR-6931.*

[3]*Excel spreadsheets containing macros are separately provided in zipped folders identified as "Files with Macros."*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)


OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





I, Thomas A. Feil, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2021-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);


2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;


4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and


5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wilmington Trust, National Association.





Date: March 25, 2022


By:/s/ THOMAS A. FEILName:*Thomas A. FeilTitle:PresidentCapital One Auto Receivables, LLC* Thomas A. Feil is the senior officer in charge of securitization of Capital One Auto Receivables, LLC