alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certifications are being made toaccompany the Registrant’s amendment to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A forthe fiscal quarter ended January 29, 2005:**

 

**Certification of Chief ExecutiveOfficer(1)**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, the undersigned officer of The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (the Company)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the amendment to theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the fiscal quarter endedJanuary 29, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  May 27, 2005 |   | /s/    BURTON  M. TANSKY |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Burton  M. Tansky                            |
|                 |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer       |

** **

** **

**Certification of Chief FinancialOfficer(1)**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, the undersigned officer of The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (the Company)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the amendment to theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the fiscal quarter endedJanuary 29, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  May 27, 2005 |   | /s/    JAMES  E. SKINNER       |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | James  E. Skinner                                  |
|                 |   | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

** **

----

(1)A signed original for this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Neiman Marcus Group,Inc. and will be retained by The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
# C_2022257EN.01003701.xml

| 4.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/37

---

Action brought on 12 May 2022 — BSW — management company of ‘BMC’ holding v Council

(Case T-258/22)

(2022/C 257/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AAT Byelorussian Steel Works — management company of ‘Byelorussian Metallurgical Company’ holding (BSW — management company of ‘BMC’ holding) (Zhlobin, Belarus) (represented by: N. Tuominen and L. Engelen, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/356 of 2 March 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/355 of 2 March 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (2), in their entirety insofar as they affect the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/356 of 2 March 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), and Council Regulation (EU) 2022/355 of 2 March 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (2), in their entirety insofar as they affect the applicant; and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs occasioned by these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs occasioned by these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures contravene the duty to give reasons, infringe the right to a fair hearing and infringe the right to effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures contravene the duty to give reasons, infringe the right to a fair hearing and infringe the right to effective judicial protection.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures breach the principle of equal treatment and misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures breach the principle of equal treatment and misuse of powers.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate, encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences and breach the applicant’s fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are disproportionate, encroach upon the Union’s legislative competences and breach the applicant’s fundamental rights.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 67, p. 103.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 67, p. 1.

---
# C_2022276EN.01002503.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/25

---

Order of the General Court of 13 April 2022 — NW v Commission

(Case T-20/22) (1)

(2022/C 276/37)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
ALL AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES                                                     EXHIBIT 11.1

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (UNAUDITED)

                                                                QUARTERS                          SIX MONTHS
PERIODS ENDED JUNE 30                                    1998              1997              1998             1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>               <C>               <C>              <C>            
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net Income.................................   $     1,010,000   $       622,000   $     1,528,000  $       924,000
                                              ===============   ===============   ===============  ===============

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding........        19,683,600        19,673,600        19,683,600       19,669,489
                                              ===============   ===============   ===============  ===============

Basic Earnings Per Share...................            $  .05            $  .03            $  .08           $  .05
                                                       ======            ======            ======           ======

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net Income.................................   $     1,010,000   $       622,000   $     1,528,000  $       924,000
                                              ===============   ===============   ===============  ===============

Weighted Average and Dilutive Shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding......        19,683,600        19,673,600        19,683,600       19,669,489
  Dilutive shares..........................           595,932            12,677           533,934           21,672
                                              ---------------   ---------------   ---------------  ---------------
                                                   20,279,532        19,686,277        20,217,534       19,691,161
                                              ===============   ===============   ===============  ===============

Diluted Earnings Per Share.................            $  .05            $  .03            $  .08           $  .05
                                                       ======            ======            ======           ======

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOHN TAIT,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 77, 2018

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID Nos. 1703018349 (N) and

§ 1703018373 (N)

§

§

Submitted: March 7, 2018

Decided: March 22, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

ORDER

This 22nd day of March 2018, upon consideration of the notice to show cause

and the parties’ responses, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On February 15, 2018, counsel for the appellant, John Tait, filed a 

notice of appeal from a Superior Court sentence imposed on December 14, 2017. A 

timely notice of appeal should have been filed on January 16, 2018.

1

 The Senior 

 

1 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (providing notice of appeal must be filed “[w]ithin 30 days after a sentence 

is imposed in a direct appeal of a criminal conviction”). The thirtieth day after Tait’s sentencing, 

January 13, 2018, was a Saturday and Monday, January 15, 2018, was a holiday (Martin Luther 

King, Jr. Day). Tait’s notice of appeal therefore had to be filed on or before Tuesday, January 16, 

2018. Supr. Ct. R. 11(a).
2

Court Clerk issued a notice directing Tait’s counsel to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6. 

(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Tait’s counsel states that 

although Tait was sentenced on December 14, 2017, the Superior Court did not sign 

and docket the sentencing order until January 16, 2018. As a result of “excusable 

error or neglect,” Tait’s counsel “interpreted and applied the final Order date 

[January 16, 2018] as the date triggering the 30 day appellate period.”2 Tait’s 

counsel requests that this Court recognize the appeal.

(3) The State was asked to respond to the position of Tait’s counsel. As 

the State recognizes, the failure of Tait’s counsel does not fall within the exception 

to the general rule requiring the timely filing of a notice of appeal. The State also 

recognizes that this failure, if not remedied, would leave the Court without 

jurisdiction to hear Tate’s direct appeal. Under these circumstances, the State 

recommends that the matter be remanded to the Superior Court with direction to 

vacate its December 14, 2017 sentence and to resentence Tait. This will allow Tait 

to pursue a timely direct appeal. 

 

2 March 6, 2018 Letter, D.I. 5.
3

(4) We agree that the proper course of action is to remand this matter to the 

Superior Court. Upon remand, the Superior Court shall vacate the December 14, 

2017 sentence and resentence Tait.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within matter is 

REMANDED to the Superior Court for further action in accordance with this order. 

Jurisdiction is not retained.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
# C_2023216EN.01004401.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — Kaminski v EUIPO — Polfarmex (SYRENA)

(Case T-35/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SYRENA - Application of the law ratione temporis - Partial inadmissibility of the action - Res judicata - Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use in the European Union - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2023/C 216/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arkadiusz Kaminski (Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: W. Trybowski, E. Pijewska and M. Mazurek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Polfarmex S.A. (Kutno, Poland)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, principally, alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 October 2021 (Joined Cases R 1952/2020-1 and R 1953/2020-1) and, in the alternative, partial annulment of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Arkadiusz Kaminski to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Arkadiusz Kaminski to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 119, 14.3.2022.

---
#### Norman Gerald DANIELS III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stu SHERMAN, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-15705

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 23, 2018

Norman Gerald Daniels, III, Pro Se

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 **

California state prisoner Norman Gerald Daniels III appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to his legal blindness. We review de *650novo whether the magistrate judge validly-entered judgment on behalf of the district court. *Allen v. Meyer,*755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Daniels consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Daniels’s action before the named defendant had been served. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(l), 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, *Williams v. King,*875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 11-10695.

#### Delgado *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6252]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice of Change in Subject of Meeting

    The National Credit Union Administration Board determined at 8:00 
a.m. on March 7, 1997, that agency business required the addition of 
the following item to the previously announced closed meeting (Federal 
Register, 62 FR 10086, March 5, 1997) scheduled for 8:10 a.m., Friday, 
March 7, 1997.

4. Request from a Federal Credit Union to Convert to a Community 
Charter.

    The Board voted (2-to-0, Vice Chairman Bowne was unavailable) that 
this request, which was one of the requests from federal credit unions 
to convert to a community charter scheduled for the open meeting, be 
closed to the public, and that no earlier announcement of this change 
was possible.
    The Board voted (2-to-0, Vice Chairman Bowne was unavailable) at 
9:30 a.m. on March 7, 1997, to delete this added item from the closed 
agenda. Agency business required this change and no earlier 
announcement of this was possible.
    The previously announced items were:

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Closed Meeting.
2. Administrative Actions under Section 206 of the Federal Credit Union 
Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (5), (7), (8), (9)(A)(ii), and 
(9)(B).
3. Personnel Action(s). Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) and (6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone (703)-518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-6252 Filed 3-7-97; 3:30 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,991
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,068)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,664
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,161
<PP&E>                                           8,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,665)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,769
<BONDS>                                          1,680
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           131
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,027
<SALES>                                          1,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,100
<CGS>                                            1,049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,032
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (340)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (374)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,928
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,928
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (97)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,831
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60


</TABLE>
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Curtis PALMORE, Petitioner

No. 389 EAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 9, 2018

*734ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-278-000]


Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas Company; Notice of Petition for 
Waiver of EDI and EDM Standards

March 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 3, 1997, Alabama-Tennessee Natural Gas 
Company (Alabama-Tennessee) filed a request to the Commission for 
waiver of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and Electronic Delivery 
Mechanism (EDM) Standards.
    Alabama-Tennessee requests the Commission to grant a temporary 
waiver of the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) datasets in EDI ASC 
x  12 format that were approved in Order No. 587 and (2) the EDM 
standards governing the method for transmitting the EDI data sets that 
were approved in Order No. 587-B.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this petition should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on or 
before March 14, 1997. 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. 97-6285 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2022011EN.01003801.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/38

---

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — LW v Commission

(Case T-728/21)

(2022/C 11/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LW (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision to move the applicant inside the same Unit to a different post; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision to move the applicant inside the same Unit to a different post;

| — | together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s contested decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the reassignment decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

together with, and in so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s contested decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the reassignment decision;

| — | order the compensation of the non-material damages of the applicant and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the compensation of the non-material damages of the applicant and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision affected the applicant’s legal interests. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision affected the applicant’s legal interests.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision has not been taken by the competent appointing authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision has not been taken by the competent appointing authority.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision have been taken in violation of Article 7(1) of the Staff regulations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision have been taken in violation of Article 7(1) of the Staff regulations.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision infringe the principle of duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision infringe the principle of duty of care.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision violated the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision and the contested decision violated the duty to state reasons.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that a conflict of interest issue vitiates the reassignment decision and the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that a conflict of interest issue vitiates the reassignment decision and the contested decision.

---