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) 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.
 May 6, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Arthur A. Koch, Jr.Arthur A. Koch, Jr.Senior Vice President,
Finance, and Chief
Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.5.3


Ratification and Extension Agreement


          THIS Agreement is made and entered into
this 6th day of August, 2008, by and between Millennium Group Worldwide
Incorporated, a Florida corporation with its principal place of business at
2825 N. 10th Street, St. Augustine, Florida 32084 (“MGW”), and
Wandana International Jambo Coffees & Teas, Inc with a principal place of
business at (“Wandana”), 200 Business Circle #106, St. Augustine, FL.32905 and
Jax Roasters, Inc. (“Jax”), located at 200 Business Circle #106, St. Augustine,
FL.32905 (collectively “we, us, the parties or the group hereinafter referred
to as “Wandana”).


          WHEREAS,
MGW have entered into a Shareholders Agreement dated 25th February,
2007 (the “Prior Shareholders Agreement”); 


          WHEREAS,
the Prior Shareholders Agreement (at third WHEREAS paragraph) and the Prior
Amendment (Now Therefore, Paragraph 2) was conditioned upon MGW obtaining
adequate funding under its Form S-1 Registration, such period of time having
already expired as a function of the registration and review process;            


          WHEREAS,
both MGW and Wandana wish to ratify the Prior Shareholders Agreement Amendment
and extend the period that will satisfy the Now Therefore, Paragraph 2
condition as to timing.


          NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
1.

	
MGW and Wandana
  hereby ratify the Prior Shareholders Agreement and Amendments in all
  respects; 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
2.

	
Section, Now
  Therefore, Paragraph 2 of the Amendment relating to timing of funding is
  extended to no later than October 15th, 2008, or immediately after the appropriate
  funding is available from the offering; and 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
3.

	
This
  Agreement, together with the Prior Shareholders Agreement and Amendments as
  hereby incorporated by reference, constitutes the entire understanding
  between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and no amendment
  or modification to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the parties
  unless made in writing and signed by each party.










IN WITNESS
WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
MILLENNIUM GROUP WORLD INCORPORATED

	
 

	
WANDANA INTERNATIONAL JAMBO COFFEES & TEAS, INC.


	
 


	
/s/ Julius
  Jackson, Sr.

	
 

	
/s/


	


	
 

	



	
(Signature)

	
 

	
(Signature)


	
 


	
Julius
  Jackson, Sr.- Chairman__

	
 

	



	


	
 

	
(Typed or
  Printed Name and Title)


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
JAX ROASTERS, INC.


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
/s/


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
          (Signature)


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
          (Typed
  or Printed Name and Title)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001015527
<NAME> GEOLOGISTICS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,628
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  265,747
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,255
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               295,027
<PP&E>                                          98,631
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 447,656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          331,187
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,550
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                    (60,932)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   447,656
<SALES>                                      1,558,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,558,204
<CGS>                                        1,195,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,195,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               428,954
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,323
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,086
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,975)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,258
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,233)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (51,811)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (24.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (24.31)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1.5

AMENDMENT NO. 6

TO THE

UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC.

CASH BALANCE PLAN

Unified Grocers, Inc. (the Company) hereby amends the above-named plan (the Plan), effective as of January 1, 2002, as
follows:

1. The definition of Cash Balance Benefit under Section 1.2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to
read as follows:

Cash Balance Benefit shall mean, for a Participant who has not reached Normal Retirement
Age, the Participants benefit as of any valuation date on or prior to the Participants Normal Retirement Date equal to a single life annuity which is the Actuarial Equivalent of the projected value of such Participants Account as
of such valuation date. For purposes of this definition, projected value is determined using the Plans current interest crediting rate and projecting to Normal Retirement Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a Participant who
has reached Normal Retirement Age, Cash Balance Benefit shall mean the Participants benefit as of any valuation date equal to a single life annuity which is the Actuarial Equivalent of such Participants Account as of such
valuation date.

* * * * * *

The Company has caused this Amendment No. 6 to be signed on the date indicated below, to be effective as indicated above.



|                         |  |  |  |                       |  |                                            |  | 
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------ |  | 
|                         |  |  |  | Company            
|                         |  | 
|                         |  |  |  | UNIFIED GROCERS, INC.
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: February 18, 2008 |  |  |  | By:                   |  | /s/    ROBERT M. LING, JR.                
|                         |  |  | 
|                         |  |  |  | Its:                  |  | Executive Vice President & General Counsel
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7875

JAMES T. BELLAMY, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

DONALD BAUKNECHT, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District 

Judge. (6:07-cv-02656-RBH) 

Submitted: February 17, 2009 Decided: April 15, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James T. Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

James T. Bellamy, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2006) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Bellamy v. Bauknecht, No. 

6:07-cv-02656-RBH (D.S.C. July 11, 2008). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
#### Conway, Appellant, vs. Young, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Bendinger & Hayes,*attorneys, and *Robert B. Ells,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Lines, Spooner & Quarles*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

# ACTION:

Notice of open Hearing of Region III Small Business Owners in Virginia Beach, VA.

# SUMMARY:

The SBA, Office of the National Ombudsman is issuing this notice to announce the location, date and time of the Virginia Beach, VA Regulatory Fairness Hearing. This hearing is open to the public.

# DATES:

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 24, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (EDT).

# ADDRESSES:

The hearing will be at the Meyera Oberndorf Library Auditorium, 4100 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Virginia Beach, VA 23452.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121), Sec. 222, SBA announces the                           ( print page 8747)                        hearing for Small Business Owners, Business Organizations, Trade Associations, Chambers of Commerce and related organizations serving small business concerns to report experiences regarding unfair or excessive Federal regulatory enforcement issues affecting their members.                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The hearing is open to the public; however, advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation at the Virginia Beach, VA hearing must contact José Méndez by March 17, 2015 in writing, or by fax or email in order to be placed on the agenda. For further information, please contact José Méndez, Case Management Specialist, Office of the National Ombudsman, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 7125, Washington, DC 20416, by phone (202) 205-6178 and fax (202) 481-5719. Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability, translation services, or require additional information, please contact José Méndez as well.

                        For more information on the Office of the National Ombudsman, see our Web site at                         *www.sba.gov/​ombudsman*.                    

Dated: February 9, 2015.

Diana Doukas,

SBA Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2015-03220 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 21 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk April 21 , 2017

15 5 395

- 6 ( 68 )

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff /Counterdefendant

- Appell ee

, SC: 15 5 395

v COA: 3 2 9585

Kent CC: 13

- 010616

- CK

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant/Cross

- Defendant

- Appellant,

and

MARK RUECKERT and MARYAN PETOSKEY,

Defendants

- Appellees

, and

ROBYNN RUECKERT,

Defendant/ Counte rp laintiff / Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellee

.

___________________________________________ /

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

, Plaintiff

- Appell ant

, SC: 15 5396

v COA: 3 29614

Kent CC: 15

- 0 0 06 05

- CK

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of appellant Ace American Insurance

Company to extend the time for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted

as timely filed if submitted on or before May 9 , 2017

.
July 25, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DANIEL EARL CULP, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00365-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<MULTIPLIER>                               1
       
<S>                                 <C>      
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       42,225,504
<SECURITIES>                                 77,049,688
<RECEIVABLES>                                   665,902
<ALLOWANCES>                                     68,929
<INVENTORY>                                   1,241,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            121,686,841
<PP&E>                                        3,908,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                1,906,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              142,654,498
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        49,808,207
<BONDS>                                         691,618
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        323,495
<OTHER-SE>                                   91,669,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                142,654,498
<SALES>                                       2,085,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            143,892,242
<CGS>                                         1,966,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,966,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              120,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             135,966,713
<INCOME-TAX>                                 47,509,199
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          88,457,514
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 88,457,514
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     29.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     29.16

        

</TABLE>
No. 82-5993.

#### Manko *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
99-604.

#### Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Szczepinski.

On March 31, 1999, movant, Cleveland Bar Association, filed with this court a motion for an order to show cause why respondent, Mark Szczepinski, should not be held in contempt of the order of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law issued October 13, 1998, compelling him to answer deposition questions pursuant to a subpoena *duces tecum*issued in the name under the seal of the Supreme Court; leave to file a reply to any response respondent may file to a show cause 'order issued by this court; an award of attorney fees; and any other relief the court deemed appropriate. On May 7, 1999, this court granted the motion and ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. On May 25, 1999, respondent filed a brief in opposition to relator’s motion. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that respondent be, and is hereby, found not to be in contempt. It is further ordered that attorney fees be, and are hereby, denied.

Douglas, J., would dismiss.

Resnick, J., would find respondent in contempt.

Cook, J., would find respondent in contempt but would permit his purging by answering the deposition questions.
mio•aolida•

.,10P-SiCe

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D C.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

MEMORANDUM FOR ADMIRAL DE POIX, DIA

SUBJECT: Overseas Processing and Interpretation Centers

As you are aware, the National Reconnaissance Officelhil

supportgithe two Overseas Processing and Interpretation

Centers in Asia and Europe, based upon policies and procedures contained in USIB-D-46.1/2, June 21, 1967. Our

interest in the OPIC operation has been in the potential

support required to process imagery for missions flown

under NRO auspices.

Historically there has been only slight need for OPIC

support to NRO missions. Flights have been conducted only

infrequently, and have, selectively, been processed at

Eastman Kodak in lieu of using the OPICs.

gregi=r4C4ftv araw.eozzsaaLd_a ce.04,1= 1:

to consolidate

all U-2 assets within the Air Fo'e v ich will re ult

bo ish the ID LIST fleet. 'l' IA' tv.....re

, and I would task the Air Force

to carry out any future missions of this nature over denied

territories.

For these reasons 0 support

to the OPICs is no longer viollajp further

provisions for OPIC supporefroarthe . All equipment

which has been furnished by the NRO to the OPICs will be

left in place, but we will not be in a position to provide

maintenance, personnel, or other support in the future. .

IDEALIST

c Dow, me/ DS Camas, aft WO Of I

MMI of III

tit CuTIVII PROS • 1111A7 • I V#1101% Can

Pal oat DM ma Dual OP

VII OOP CONTROL NO

COPY OF COPIES

PAGE OF PAGES

,Ni 6,411.wiefil
Approved for Release: 2018/11/16 C05114 706 

- .~-'. ;-, 

'." :. \\\11\111\\\11\11\11\\\11\\11\\\\111\\\1\\\1\\\\1\\\\1\11\11\\\1\ 14 OOO03470D 

\iVAS:-!H"JGTON 2.5, D.C. 

-lit 

6 June 1963 

Iv1Ej'>/:OR..A .. :NDUlv1 FOR: Di::..-ector of National Reconnaissance 

SUBJECT 

REl:'""'ERENCE 

Office 

Project TAGBOARD 

IVfe:rno::-andum for DD/NRO, D/NRO Staff, 

and D/Prograrn. D, dated 4 June 1963, 

fron"l D/NRO (BYE-5125-63) 

Since TAGBOARD is a m.ajor policy matter an.d involves 

equi:pTnent fo::- covert overflight operations 1OJ." which, in the 

past, responsibility has been as signed to CLA..., I believe 

that prior to any implementation of the above re£erenceddirective, a policy decision should be obtained from 

Sec/Dei and DCI. I aITl proposing to tal::e this up with the 

DCI and suggest that it ITlight be desi!able for you to state 

in a !Y'~er~"loranduITl to hiITl t,.."1J.e reaso:::.s for making this change 

in responsibility. 

HERBERTSCO~LLE~ J~ 

Deputy Director ... ': 

Research 

BYE-0143-63 

Copy ! -~---

Approved for Release: 2018/11/16 C05114 706 I
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Centers for Medical Countermeasures Against Radiation Consortium (U19).                    

*Date:*                         March 4, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Room 3F100, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Louis A. Rosenthal, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, DHHS/NIH/NIAID/DEA, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC-7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-8399,                         *rosenthalla@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 9, 2015.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-03089 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Motion Granted; Reinstated; Vacated and Remanded; Memorandum Opinion 

filed March 13, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00517-CV

EVERBANK, AS SUCESSOR BY MERGER OF EVERHOME 

MORTGAGE COMPANY, Appellant

V.

CARL D. SHAW, Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-58741

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 7, 2013. On August 1, 

2013, this court abated the appeal and referred the parties to mediation. On 

November 21, 2013, the parties advised this court that they had reached a 

resolution of the dispute, but they requested that the abatement be extended so that 

they could finalize the settlement. We granted the motion and extended the 
2

abatement.

On February 28, 2014, the parties filed an agreed motion to vacate the 

judgment and remand the case to the trial court for entry a take-nothing judgment 

consistent with the parties’ agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2). The motion 

is granted. 

Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and order the trial court’s judgment 

signed March 7, 2013, vacated and set aside without regard to the merits. We 

remand the cause to the trial court for entry of a take-nothing judgment in 

accordance with the parties’ agreement.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Wise.