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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
officers of Rand Capital SBIC, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the Form10-K) of the Company fully complies with the
requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 15, 2012

LOGO

Allen F. Grum, President of

Rand Capital Corporation

(chief executive officer

of Rand Capital SBIC, Inc.)

Dated: March 15, 2012

LOGO

Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer of

Rand Capital Corporation

(chief financial officer

of Rand Capital SBIC, Inc.)



56
No. 11-10761.

#### Warrener *v.*Suthers, Attorney General of Colorado.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

 

	Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Harold's Stores, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 2, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
# C_2022284EN.01001701.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 19 April 2022 — Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH v Corint Media GmbH

(Case C-260/22)

(2022/C 284/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Seven.One Entertainment Group GmbH

Defendant: Corint Media GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Directive 2001/29/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that broadcasting organisations are entitled, directly and originally, to the right to the fair compensation provided for under the ‘private copying’ exception, in accordance with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Directive 2001/29/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that broadcasting organisations are entitled, directly and originally, to the right to the fair compensation provided for under the ‘private copying’ exception, in accordance with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC?

| 2. | Having regard to their right under Article 2(e) of Directive 2001/29/EC, can broadcasting organisations be excluded from the right to fair compensation under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC because they may also be entitled to fair compensation in their capacity as film producers under that provision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Having regard to their right under Article 2(e) of Directive 2001/29/EC, can broadcasting organisations be excluded from the right to fair compensation under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC because they may also be entitled to fair compensation in their capacity as film producers under that provision?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Is the general exclusion of broadcasting organisations permissible even though, depending on their specific programming, they sometimes acquire film producers’ rights only to a very small extent (in particular in the case of television channels with a high proportion of programmes licensed from third parties) and they sometimes acquire no film producers’ rights at all (in particular in the case of radio broadcasters)?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

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

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains a summary of financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and the Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Earnings and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
<CASH>                                          39,592
<SECURITIES>                                   185,268
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,703
<INVENTORY>                                    570,029
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               926,369
<PP&E>                                         881,332
<DEPRECIATION>                                 374,923
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,586,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          421,946
<BONDS>                                        319,634
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           491
<OTHER-SE>                                     732,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,586,024
<SALES>                                      1,988,026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,988,026
<CGS>                                        1,330,058
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,818,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,211
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,185
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                150,071
<INCOME-TAX>                                    58,528
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             90,787
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    90,787
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.84


</TABLE>
No. 11-10639.

#### Lee *v.*Louisiana.

Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-22-003]


Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, Northern Border Pipeline 
Company (Northern Border) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the pro forma tariff sheets listed 
on Appendix A to the filing, to become effective April 1, 1997.
    Northern Border states that this filing is made in compliance with 
Order No. 587, issued in Docket No. RM96-1-000 on July 17, 1996; the 
``Notice Clarifying Procedures for filing Pro Forma Tariff Sheets'', 
issued September 12, 1996; the Commission's Order on Compliance Filing 
issued November 15, 1996 in Docket No. RP97-22-000, and the 
Commission's Order on Compliance and Rehearing issued February 18, 1997 
in Docket Nos. RP97-22-001 and RP97-22-002 (February 18 Order). These 
pro forma tariff sheets reflect the requirements of Order No. 587 that 
interstate pipelines follow standardized procedures for critical 
business practices--nominations, flowing gas (allocations, balancing, 
and measurement), invoicing, and capacity release.
    Northern Border states copies of this filing are being served on 
all affected customers and applicable state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6121 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42407

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

CRYSTAL SPRING LEE

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 324

Filed: January 27, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Canyon County. Hon. Christopher S. Nye , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron , Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney

General, Boise, for res pondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Crystal Spring Lee pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance . I.C. § 37

-

2732(c)(1) . The district court sentenced Lee to a unified te rm of four years, with a minimum

period of confinement of two years . However, the district court retained jurisdiction and sent

Lee to participate in the rider program. Thereafter, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and

ordered execution of L ee’s original sentence. Lee filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district

court denied. Lee appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knigh ton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In2 presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of

new or additional information subsequ ently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including any new information submitted with Lee ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Lee ’s Rule 35

motion is affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00125-CR

Paul Stautzenberger, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 8 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C1-CR-05-708869, HONORABLE CARLOS HUMBERTO BARRERA, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

PER CURIAM

Based on his plea of nolo contendere, appellant was convicted of driving with a

suspended license and sentenced to one day in jail. Appellant’s brief was originally due on May 15,

2009. He requested and was granted an extension of time to file his brief to June 16, 2009. By letter

dated August 3, 2009, this Court’s clerk notified appellant that his brief was late and requested a

response updating the status of this appeal by August 13, 2009. The brief has not been received and

appellant, proceeding pro se on appeal as he did at trial, did not respond to this Court’s notice that

the brief is overdue based on the extended deadline.

The appeal is abated. Appellant may file a motion to dismiss if he no longer wishes

to prosecute this appeal. Otherwise, the trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether

appellant desires to prosecute this appeal and, if so, whether appellant desires the assistance of an
2

attorney and, if so, whether appellant is indigent. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2). If appellant is entitled

to but does not desire the assistance of an appointed attorney, he shall waive that right on the record.

If appellant is entitled to and desires the assistance of an appointed attorney, the trial court shall

make the appointment. The trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations. A

record from this hearing, including copies of all findings and orders and a transcription of the court

reporter’s notes, shall be forwarded to the clerk of this Court for filing as a supplemental record no

later than October 5, 2009. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). Any attorney appointed shall, on or before

October 5, 2009, file in this Court a motion for extension of time to file a brief.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Abated

Filed: August 28, 2009

Do Not Publish
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas M. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50043

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 16, 2018

Ruth Pinkel, Assistant U.S. Attorney, L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Atyria S. Clark, Esquire, Attorney, The Community Law Firm, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and ' MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM *

Thomas M. Johnson appeals six special conditions of supervised release, imposed following revocation of his supervised release, We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm,

Johnson contends that the district court erred in imposing the special conditions of supervised release, which he argues unreasonably restrict his property and liberty interests, limit his employability, and are overbroad. Conditions of supervised release are reviewed for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Betts,*511 F.3d 872, 874 (9th Cir. 2007).

Johnson’s crimes of conviction, and the nature of his supervised release violations, justified imposition of the additional conditions. In light of the significant amount Johnson owes in restitution, the first challenged condition is reasonable. *See id.*at 876-77 (district court may order that part or all of windfall monies be applied to restitution as long as the court determines amount that will be applied). Contrary to Johnson’s contention, the four employment-related conditions are not overbroad and are reasonably necessary to protect the public from future acts of financial fraud by Johnson. *See id.*at 874-75. Finally, the business records condition is reasonably related to the circumstances of Johnson’s conviction and to the goals of deterrence and protection of the public. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1); *United States v. Daniels,*541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2008). Because the conditions imposed by the district court are reasonably related to deterrence and the protection of the public, and do not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing them. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); *Daniels,*541 F.3d at 924.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.06

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED

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 Annual Report of Public Service Company of North Carolina, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Dated:
February 28, 2005

|/s/KEVIN B. MARSH                                 | 
|------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                  | 
|Kevin B. Marsh                                    | 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
No. 11-10627.

#### Smith *v.*Tennessee.

Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     UT                         
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                    PER-BOOK        
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>       481,002
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>         642
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>           88,422       
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>         15,076        
<OTHER-ASSETS>                        0      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  585,142                             
<COMMON>                         19,771                                       
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>       123,474          
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>              64,123
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>  207,368        

<PAGE>

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0        
<PREFERRED>                           0        
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>            180,850        
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>               38,000        
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>             0        
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>        0        
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>     9,300      
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>             0  
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                      0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>  149,623
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>   585,141
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>       337,930
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>             15,711
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>      100,500
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>      116,211
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>          39,715
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                3,886
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>   43,601
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>         17,254
<NET-INCOME>                     26,347
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>           0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>    26,347
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>         17,301
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>        15,139
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>           44,137
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      1.35                                  
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.34            
        


</TABLE>
#### BIG DADDY’S BEER & PIZZA, INC. v. DELBALSO BROS.

1908 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/25/2017

20160016

(Luzerne)

Quashed
|    |                                                                                                                                        |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. for the fiscal year end December 31, 2019; |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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; and |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.     |

|                |
|----------------|
|                |  |  |
| April 28, 2020 |   | /s/ Kenneth M. Young |
|           |   | Kenneth M. Young |
|           |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|           |   |
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-06-00538- CV In r e Edwar d E. R

ic ks ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS CO UNTY ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. SeeTex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ember ton and Waldrop Filed: September

22, 2006
Farngalo, Zuri 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

From: Benjamin, Lynorae 

Huey, Joel 

Tuesday, May21, 201310:47 AM 

Farngalo, Zuri 

FW: Louisville SSM SIP 

Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:38 PM 

To: Kornylak, Vera S.; Huey, Joel 

Subject: FW: Louisville SSM SIP 

From: Anderson, Lauren [mailto:Lauren.Anderson@louisvilleky.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:37PM 

To: Kemker, carol 

Cc: Banister, Beverly; Gettle, Jeaneanne; Davis, Scott; Benjamin, Lynorae; Kornylak, Vera S.; 

cynthia.lee@louisvilleky.gov; Hamilton, Rachael; john.lyons@ky.gov; andrea.smith@ky.gov 

Subject: RE: Louisville SSM SIP 

Carol et al.- thank you for this clarification. We do understand that you can only propose, and I apologize if our letter 

led to any confusion. Thank you all for your work on our behalf. 

See you next week, 

Lauren Anderson 

Director 

Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District 

850 Barret Avenue 

Louisville, Kentucky 40204 

(502) 574-6009 

From: Kemker, carol [mailto:Kemker.carol@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 1:42PM 

To: Anderson, Lauren ,, 

Cc: Banister, Beverly; Gettle, Jeaneanne; Davis, Scott; Benjamin, Lynorae; Kornylak, VeraS. 

Subject: Louisville SSM SIP 

Lauren: 

Thank you for your clarification letter regarding the Jefferson County excess emissions rule. We wanted to also make 

one clarification. As you know, both the proposed SIP-call, and EPA's forthcoming proposal to approve Jefferson 

County's recent revisions to Regulation 1.07 must go through proper public notice and comment rulemaking processes. 

As a result, we cannot commit (and have not committed) to determine the outcome of either of those two processes as 

this time. We indicated that we intend to propose approval of Jefferson County's revisions to Regulation 1.07; however, 

we need to let the rulemaking processes move forward and a final decision will come when we take final action, 

consistent with that rulemaking process. 

Carol