alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
                     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Tanger
                     Properties Limited Partnership (the "
                     Operating Partnership") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that: (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Operating
                     Partnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                     15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                     amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                     all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                     operations of the Operating Partnership.  Date: May 7, 2010
                           
                           
                           /s/ Frank C. Marchisello, Jr.Frank C. Marchisello, Jr.Vice President, Treasurer & AssistantSecretary of Tanger GP Trust, Sole GeneralPartner of the Registrant
# C_2005143EN.01002501.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in the case of Albert Collée, as full legal successor to Collée KG v Finanzamt Limburg a.d. Lahn

(Case C-146/05)

(2005/C 143/36)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 10 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 1 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Albert Collée, as full legal successor to Collée KG, and Finanzamt Limburg a.d. Lahn on the following questions:

| 1. | Is a tax authority entitled to refuse to allow an intra-Community supply, which undoubtedly occurred, to be exempt from tax solely on the ground that the taxable person did not produce the prescribed accounting evidence in good time? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a tax authority entitled to refuse to allow an intra-Community supply, which undoubtedly occurred, to be exempt from tax solely on the ground that the taxable person did not produce the prescribed accounting evidence in good time?

| 2. | Does the answer to the question depend on whether the taxable person initially knowingly concealed the fact that an intra-Community supply had occurred? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the answer to the question depend on whether the taxable person initially knowingly concealed the fact that an intra-Community supply had occurred?

---
----

Action brought on 28 June 2004 by Mundipharma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-256/04)

(2004/C 217/63)

Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure - language in which the application was submitted: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 June 2004 by Mundipharma AG, Basel (Switzerland), represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer.

Altana Pharma AG, Konstanz (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----
----

Action brought on 19 March 2004 by Atlantic Container Line AB, Grupo TMM SA De CV, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd, Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd, Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, P&O Nedlloyd Container Line Limited and Sea-Land Service, Inc against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-113/04)

(2004/C 118/98)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 March 2004 by Atlantic Container Line AB, Gothenburg (Sweden), Grupo TMM SA De CV, Tlalpan (Mexico), Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd, Seoul (South Korea), Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd, Seoul (South Korea), Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, Geneva (Switzerland), Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, Singapore (Republic of Singapore), Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, Levington (United Kingdom), P&O Nedlloyd Container Line Limited, London, and Sea-Land Service, Inc, Jacksonville (USA), represented by J. Pheasant, M. Levitt and K. Nicholson, Solicitors.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

On 16 December 1998, the Commission imposed fines on the applicants in respect of two infringements of Article 82 EC. By judgment of 30 September 2003 (1), The Court of First Instance annulled those fines in full.

The applicants allege that they have suffered considerable monetary loss as a direct result of the Commission's unlawful imposition of the fines. According to the applicants, this loss takes the form of the costs incurred by the applicants in providing bank guarantees in lieu of payment of the fines unlawfully imposed and in maintaining those guarantees in force from the date on which they were first obtained until the date of their cancellation. The payment of a sum equal to such costs is necessary in order to restore the applicants to the legal position in which they would have been, had the Commission not unlawfully imposed such fines.

The applicant seeks an order requiring the Commission to take the ‘necessary measures’ required by Article 233 EC to comply with the above-mentioned judgment, by paying each of the applicants an amount equivalent to the costs incurred by each applicant respectively in the provision of its bank guarantee, together with the appropriate interest.

----

(1)  Judgment of 30.9.2003 in joined Cases T-191/98 and T-212/98–T-214/98, Atlantic Container Line and others/Commission (not yet published in European Court Reports).

----
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                 SUBSIDIARIES

A.       DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES


<Table>
<Caption>
    Name                                                            Jurisdiction of
                                                                        Incorporation
<S>      <C>                                                            <C>
(1)      Simmons International Holding Company, Inc.                    New York
(2)      Gallery Corp.                                                  Delaware
(3)      The Simmons Manufacturing Co., LLC                             Delaware
(4)      Simmons Contract Sales, LLC                                    Delaware
(5)      World of Sleep Outlets, LLC                                    Delaware
(6)      Windsor Bedding Co., LLC                                       Delaware
(7)      Dreamwell, Ltd.                                                Nevada
(8)      Simmons Capital Management, LLC                                Nevada
(9)      SC Holdings, Inc.                                              Delaware
(10)     Sleep Country USA, Inc.                                        Delaware


A.       FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

<Caption>
    Name                                                            Jurisdiction of
                                                                        Incorporation
<S>      <C>                                                            <C>
(1)      Simmons Caribbean Bedding, Inc.                                Puerto Rico
(2)      INFO Establishment                                             Liechtenstein
(3)      Simmons IP, Inc.                                               Ontario
(4)      688363 Ontario Limited                                         Ontario
(5)      Simmons International Limited                                  Bahamas
</Table>
DENY; and Opinion Filed March 6 , 2015 . 

# S
In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 15 - 00223 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 00 2 24 - CV IN RE JOHN CLOUD , Relator Original Proceeding from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F93 - 61603 - N , F93 - 61604 - N 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang - Miers, Brown, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Brown Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus compl aining that although he filed a motion for forensic DNA testing pursuant to chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure on December 23, 2014, the trial court has not determined whether reasonable grounds exist for the filing of the motion, has not determined whether relator is indigent and has not appointed counsel for the proceeding. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 64.01(c) (West Supp. 20 14) (“The convicting court shall appoint counsel for the convicted person if the person informs the court that the person wishes to submit a motion under this chapter, the court finds reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed, and the court determines that the person is indigent.”) . Relator was convicted of aggravated sexual assault on a child under age fourteen and sentenced to life imprisonment in each case. Cloud v. State , 05 - 96 - 00732 - CR, 1998 WL 227941, at *1 (Tex. App.
— Dallas May 8, 1998, pet. ref'd). We affirmed the conviction s . Id.– 2
– On three previous occasions, this Court has affirmed the trial court’s d enial of relator’s request for forensic DNA testing of the material that is the subject of relator’s current motion for forensic DNA testing. See Cloud v. State , Nos. 05 - 13 - 01235 - CR & 05 - 13 - 01237 - CR , 2014 WL 1413818, at *1 (Tex. App.
— Dallas Mar. 26, 2014 , pet. ref’d ) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Cloud v. State, Nos. 05
– 07
– 01414
– CR & 05
– 07
– 01415
– CR, 2008 WL 3020817 (Tex. App.
— Dallas Aug. 6, 2008, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publicat ion) ; Cloud v. State, Nos. 05
– 03
– 01146
– CR & 05
– 03
– 01162
– CR, 2004 WL 1615832 (Tex. App.
— Dallas July 20, 2004, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., n ot designated for publication). The mandamus record does not present a ground for the relief relator seeks. In re Sims , No. 05 - 13 - 00049 - CV, 2013 WL 1273912, at *1 (Tex. App.
— Dallas Mar. 15, 2013, orig. proceeding) (“Relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to repeatedly rule on the same motion.”); In re Durden , No. 14 - 12 - 00143 - CR, 2012 WL 590815, at *2 (Tex. App.
— Houston [14th Dist.] F eb. 23, 2012, orig. proceeding) (“[N]o ruling is required in response to a subsequent filing of a motion for DNA testing if there has already been a full adjudication in connection with a prior motion for DNA testing, absent exceptional circumstances.”); In re Birdwell , 393 S.W.3d 886, 893 (Tex. App.
— Waco 2012, no pet.) (Gray, C.J. concurring) (denying mandamus compelling ruling on tenth motion for forensic DNA testing). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

150223F.P05 /Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Jim C. Nicholas
 
 
 RE:
    
    $5,000,000.00 Revolving Line of Credit for letters of credit from JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
(Chase) to Sterling Chemicals, Inc. (Borrower)
  Line of Credit Agreement
  T E R M S  A N D  C O N D I T I O N S
 SECTION 1 THE DISCRETIONARY LINE OF CREDIT
 Section 1.1 Line of Credit for Letters of Credit  Line of Credit Termination Date LCs LC Agreement Application LC Obligations Maximum Amount
 Section 1.2 Terms and Fees:
 Section 1.3 Collateral; Loan Documents: Assignment Loan Documents Proper Form
 Section 1.4 Existing LCs.
 SECTION 2 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
 Section 2.1 Conditions Precedent:
 SECTION 3 REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES
  Section 3.1 Organization, Due Execution, and Enforceability:
 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.   




---



##### 



Letter Agreement
    
    Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
    
    January 31, 2010
  Section 3.2 Accurate Information:
 Section 3.3 No Defaults:
 Section 3.4 No Litigation, etc.:
 Section 3.5 Payment of Taxes:
 Section 3.6 Compliance, Governmental Requirements, Permits and Contracts:
 Section 3.7 Regulation U:
 SECTION 4 COVENANTS
  Section 4.1 Financial Information Statements:
 Section 4.2 Representation and Warranties:
 Section 4.4 Notification of Corporate and Other Changes:
 Section 4.5 Compliance:
 SECTION 5 EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
 Section 5.1 Defaults and Remedies Event of Default
 SECTION 6 MISCELLANEOUS
 Section 6.1 Amendments and Waivers:
 Section 6.2 Expenses:
 Page 2 of 3 Pages




---



##### 



Letter Agreement
    
    Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
    
    January 31, 2010
  Section 6.3 Usury: Highest Lawful Rate
 Section 6.4 Survival: provided
 Section 6.5 Documentary Matters:
 Section 6.6 Governing Law: THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND GOVERNED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND AS APPLICABLE THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
 JURY WAIVER.
 Section 6.7 WAIVER OF SPECIAL DAMAGES.
       
    Page 3 of 3 Pages
# C_2005093EN.01001601.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/16

---

Action brought on 17 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-79/05)

(2005/C 93/29)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and A. Aresu, acting as Agents.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances, in particular in respect of the obligation to check annually for leakages fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer; (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances, in particular in respect of the obligation to check annually for leakages fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer; (1)

1

| 2. | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On the basis of the available information, the Italian Republic does not appear to have yet adopted any measures in accordance with Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000.

---

(1)  OJ L 244 of 29. 9. 2000, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2005044EN.01000602.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3636 — Petronas/Sasol/Uhambo JV)

(2005/C 44/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 14 February 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/ ). This web site 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 under document number 32005M3636. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3636. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2004284EN.01000202.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 23 September 2004

in Case C-414/02: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul v Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich (1)

1

(Community Customs Code - Article 202 - Accrual of the customs debt - Unlawful introduction into the Community customs territory - Meaning of ‘debtor’ of such a debt - Extension to the employer of liability for the debt of an employee who has committed irregularities in the performance of customs obligations)

(2004/C 284/04)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-414/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 6 November 2002, received at the Court on 19 November 2002, in the proceedings between Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul and Finanzlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 September 2004, in which it has ruled:

Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation such as Paragraph 79(2) of the Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz (Act to implement customs law) which, in the event of unlawful introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods subject to import duties, makes the employer co-debtor of the customs debt of the employee who introduced those goods in the conduct of the employer's affairs, so long as such legislation requires that the employer took part in the introduction of the goods and knew or ought reasonably to have known that such introduction was unlawful.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 25.1.2003.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Philip L.
Jones, as Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President of Profile
Technologies, Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.


                                                 /s/ Philip L. Jones
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                 Philip L. Jones
                                                 Chief Operating Officer and
                                                 Executive Vice President
#### Klug, by guardian *ad litem,*Respondent, vs. Eickelberg, Appellant.

For the appellant: *George A. Hartman*of Juneau and *Clark & Lueck*of Beaver Dam.

For the respondent: *Grady, Farnsworth & Walker*of Portage.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005057EN.01004003.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/40

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-386/03 (1)

1

(2005/C 57/69)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 15 December 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-386/03, Deutsche Telekom v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 35 of 7.2.2004.

1

---
August 2023

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Roofs and Covers (Code 367) 

A roofs and covers system consists of a rigid, semirigid, or

flexible manufactured membrane, composite material, or

roof structure placed over a waste management facility, or

an agrichemical handling facility, or an on-farm secondary

containment facility. 

Practice Information 

The roofs and covers practice is a component of an

agricultural waste management system. Roofs and covers

are installed to prevent the escape of gasses from waste facilities and to exclude precipitation from

these facilities. 

This practice can also utilize a roof to divert clean water from animal management areas and/or waste

storage facilities. 

Roofs and covers can improve air and water quality and facilitate the capture of biogases for energy

production. The gasses captured include methane, ammonia, and others that cause odors. The

methane can be captured and burned for fuel or flared to prevent it from entering the atmosphere as a

greenhouse gas. The partial pressures created by placing a cover over a liquid storage or treatment

facility allows more nitrogen to be retained in the waste that can be used for crop production. 

Operation and maintenance requirements include periodic inspections with prompt repair of damaged

components and monitoring to ensure the continued success of the practice. 

When covers are used for biogas collection, additional safety precautions will be required. 

Common Associated Practices 

Roofs and Covers (367) is commonly applied with conservation practices associated with waste

storage and treatment facilities such as Anaerobic Digester (366), Waste Treatment Lagoon (359),

and Waste Storage Facility (313), Composting Facility (317), or an Agrichemical Handling Facility

(309), and On- Farm Secondary Containment Facility (319). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.