alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Company’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer each certify asfollows:

(a)

This Report on Form 10-Q fullycomplies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

(b)

The information contained in this Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

|   |   |   |   |                                                                  |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |        |   |   | /s/ LAWRENCE N. SMITH                                                 |
|   |   |   |   |                                                                       |
|   |   |   |   | **Lawrence N. Smith****Chief Executive Officer****Date: May13, 2003** |

 

|   |   |   |   |                                                                         |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |        |   |   | /s/ ELEANOR J. WHITEHURST                                                    |
|   |   |   |   |                                                                              |
|   |   |   |   | **Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer****Date: May 13,2003** |
# C_2016296EN.01000801.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf — Germany)) — Sabine Hünnebeck v Finanzamt Krefeld

(Case C-479/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Gift tax - Gift of immovable property situated within national territory - National law providing for a higher tax-free allowance for residents than for non-residents - Existence of an optional regime allowing any person resident in an EU Member State to benefit from the higher tax-free allowance))

(2016/C 296/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sabine Hünnebeck

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Krefeld

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of national law that provide, in respect of gifts between non-residents, in the absence of a specific request by the beneficiary, for recourse to a method of calculation of taxation by application of a lower tax-free allowance. Those articles also preclude, in any event, rules of national law which provide, at the request of such a beneficiary, for recourse to a method of calculation of taxation by application of a higher tax-free allowance which applies to gifts in respect of which at least one party is a resident, the exercise of that option by the non-resident beneficiary involving the aggregation, for the purpose of the calculation of tax due on the gift in question, of all the gifts received by that beneficiary from the same person over the course of the 10 years preceding and the 10 years following that gift.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.41

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         In consideration of the deletion of Article 4.5 of the Employment
Agreement (the "Agreement") dated June 15, 1998 between Weatherford
International, Inc. (formerly EVI Weatherford, Inc.) (the "Company"), and Philip
Burguieres ("Burguieres"), the Company hereby extends the term of the Agreement
as stated in Article 2 from the original termination date of September 30, 2008
to September 30, 2013, "unless sooner terminated as . . . provided."

         By executing this Agreement, Burguieres acknowledges that he is
unconditionally canceling the Company's total obligations under paragraph 4.5 of
the Agreement.

         Signed this 16th day of October, 2000.



                                       Weatherford International, Inc.

                                       /s/ Bernard J. Duroc-Danner
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Bernard Duroc-Danner
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer



                                       /s/ Philip Burguieres
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Philip Burguieres
No. 10-7248.

#### Jerome E. Marshall, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1076, 131 S. Ct. 680,

178 L. Ed. 2d 505,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9206.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
DLA Aviation’s Industrial Gas Support Program for Europe

(This program does NOT include Class 1 Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)!!! – Continue

to use established ODS Program procedures and Points of Contact)

DLA Aviation, Richmond awarded an industrial gas support contract to International Gas and

Services (IGS) in Willebroek, Belgium, to supply industrial compressed and liquefied gases to

Military and Federal activities in Europe. The European Industrial Gas Support Program includes:

• Supplying various types and grades of compressed and liquefied gases in a variety of cylinder

sizes.

• Delivering full cylinders to the customer’s site.

• An exchange program that includes delivering full cylinders and picking up empty cylinders from

the customer’s site.

An AE302 form is required with every cylinder delivery and empty cylinder pick up. Instructions will

accompany this form and are also located on our website. The AE302 is a customs form required

by EU regulations to allow our US Government cylinders to travel throughout the EU without being

taxed or ceased. It is imperative that customers sign and return the AE302 to the customs office in

Belgium.

Continue to order your Industrial Gas requirements using your Service/Government agency

automated ordering systems using MILSTRIP/FEDSTRIP (Standard Form 344) or shop online 

through DoD FedMall. 

For Navigation, Ordering Assistance or Procedural issues with FedMall please contact the 

Customer Interaction Center at:

DSN CONUS/OCONUS: 877-352-2255 or Email: dlacontactcenter@dla.mil.

For additional gas NSNs not available for ordering off the Europe contract, customers may order 

off the CONUS contract as it supplements the Europe contract for those items not available. 

Customers must keep in mind the transit time when ordering off the CONUS contract.

POC: For additional information call the Gas and Cylinder Program Manager, at (804) 279-5477

(DSN 695).
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20369

(Summary Calendar)

DEBBIE ESPINOSA, Individually and

on behalf of the Estate of Robert Espinosa

a/n/f of Dustin and Devin Espinosa and

Dorene Gonzales, Minors; MARY ESPINOSA;

RUDOLPH ESPINOSA, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

GERALD J. MORAN, ET AL.,

Defendants,

CITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-2978)

December 23, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The wife, minor children, and parents of Robert Espinosa appeal the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to the City of Houston on wrongful death claims brought by the Espinosas under
2

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Texas Tort Claims Act. Having reviewed the Espinosas’ arguments and

the record on appeal de novo, we affirm the judgment regarding the Espinosas’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claimsfor the same reasonsstated bythe district court. Espinosa v. Moran, et al., No. CA-H-94-2978

(S.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 1996). Specifically, the Espinosas have not raised a genuine issue of materialfact

regarding their § 1983 claim because they have not produced any evidence implicating a policy,

custom or practice of the City of Houston as required under Monell v. Dept. of Social Svcs. of the

City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).

The Espinosas argue that the district court granted summary judgment on their state law

negligence claims sua sponte without giving them ten days advance notice as required by law. The

claims which the Espinosas argue that the district court improperly dismissed, however, were not

specifically outlined in their amended complaint as required under the Texas Tort Claims Act. See

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 101.021 (West 1996); Dear v. City of Irving, 902 S.W.2d 731,

737 (Tex. App.-- Dallas 1995, writ denied). Thus, the evidence the Espinosas maintain they would

have presented to the district court if the court had not granted summary judgment sua sponte does

not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the claims pleaded in their amended complaint.

AFFIRMED.
▪ Passive immunization

– Transfer of preformed antibody produced externally to provide protection to the 

recipient

– Provides temporary protection that wanes with time

– Transfer of maternal antibody across the placenta that provides protection in early 

infancy is an example of passive immunization

▪ Active immunization

– Administration of specific components of an infectious agent that elicit an immune 

response in the recipient

– Immunology memory provides prolonged protection that may be lifelong

– Traditional vaccines provide active immunization

Passive and Active Immunization
▪ With development of long-acting monoclonal 

antibodies (mAbs), there is an opportunity to 

provide protection beyond what can be 

provided by traditional vaccines

▪ Especially valuable when

– Full protection is needed without delay

– A traditional vaccine is not available 

▪ For some indications, a long-acting mAb

might provide “long enough” protection

– For a respiratory disease season

– For a critical part of a pregnancy

– For prevention of travel-related infection

Monoclonal antibodies for 

prevention of infectious diseases

who-monoclonal-antibodies.jpg (2480×3508)
CDC will prioritize for ACIP consideration those long-acting monoclonal 

antibodies for prevention of infectious diseases that are:

▪ Expected to address conditions that result in a significant burden of 

disease to the public’s health; 

▪ Not expected to present significant implementation issues – at least 

from the perspective of mode of administration, storage and handling, 

and frequency of administration -- for immunization providers; and

▪ Expected to be priced at a level allowing for incorporation into 

immunization programs. 

CDC’s Approach to Prioritizing Long-Acting Monoclonal 

Antibodies for Prevention of Infectious Diseases
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1016 

CA 12-00233 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF GAMALIEL (TONY) DOMINGUEZ, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF PATRICK M. O’FLYNN, 

CAPTAIN ANDREW FORSYTHE, LIEUTENANT JOHN 

DIMARTINO AND DEPUTY PATRICIO ROJAS, JR., 

IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, 

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

WILLIAM K. TAYLOR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (BRIAN E. MARIANETTI OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

JEFFREY WICKS, PLLC, ROCHESTER (JEFFREY WICKS OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann

Marie Taddeo, J.), entered November 4, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant

to CPLR article 78. The order, inter alia, vacated the termination of

petitioner and ordered his reinstatement. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Matter of Laborers Intl. Union of N. Am., Local

210, AFL-CIO v Shevlin-Manning, Inc., 147 AD2d 977). 

Entered: October 5, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 8, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearin g.

________________ No. 3D18-1287 Lower Tribunal No. 15-2333

________________ 

### Cristina Suarez, Appellant,

vs. 

### Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez & Martinez, and Steven E. Gurian and Dav id F. Garcia, for appellant. Hinshaw & Culbertson, and Maureen G. Pearcy, for appellee.

Before SALTER and LINDSEY, JJ., and LEBAN, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM. On Partial Concession of Error2 Cristina Suarez (the “Insured”) appeals a final judgment award ing the defendant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (the “Insure r”), attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in a circuit court lawsuit. We affirm as to entitlement to fees, as the Insurer’s proposal for settlement complied with section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2018), and the Florida Supreme Court’s holdings in Ku hajda v. Borden Dairy Co. of Alabama, LLC, 202 So. 3d 391, 395-96 (Fla. 2016). We reject the Insured’s argument that her separate count for d eclaratory relief (voluntarily dismissed on the first day of trial) was a claim f or purely equitable relief that invalidated the Insurer’s proposal for settlement. The tr ial court correctly determined that the “real issue” in the case was a claim for br each of contract and money damages. See Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. v. Javellana, 238 So. 3d 372, 376-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Based on the Insurer’s limited and proper concession of error, we reverse and remand that portion of the final judgment fixing the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded to the Insurer. On remand, the Insurer shall only reco ver those attorney’s fees incurred and actually paid or payable to its attorneys by the Insurer, from service of the 2016 proposal for settlement through the date of the ord er granting entitlement to fees. See § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2018); Reliance Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Ill. v. Booher, 166 So. 2d 222, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (applying dictio nary definition of “incurred”).3 The final judgment is affirmed as to the Insurer’s entitlement to attorney’s fees, and (pursuant to the Insurer’s limited concession of erro r) reversed and remanded as to the amount of such fees to be awarded to the Ins urer.
<pre>

Exhibit 31.1

Certification Of The Chief Executive Officer Pursuant To Section
906 Of The Sarbanes - Oxley Act Of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ludlum
Construction Co., Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10 Q-SB of the Company for
the period ended March 31, 2004, as amended, (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 Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.


Dated: December 22, 2004         By: /s/ FLOYD D. WILKENSON
                                 ----------------------------
                                 Floyd D. Wilkenson
                                 Authorized Agent/Sole Director
                                 Appointed by Board of Directors
                                 on March 19, 2004


Certification Of The Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act Of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 the undersigned officer of Ludlum
Construction Co., Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10 Q-SB of the Company for the
quarter ended March 31,  2004, as amended, (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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented
in the Report.

Dated: December 22, 2004         By: /s/ FLOYD D. WILKENSON
                                 ----------------------------
                                 Floyd D. Wilkenson
                                 Authorized Agent/Sole Director
                                 Appointed by Board of Directors
                                 on March 19, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2729 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2729

 To discontinue a Federal program that authorizes State and local law 
 enforcement officers to investigate, apprehend, and detain aliens in 
     accordance with a written agreement with the Director of U.S. 
  Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to clarify that immigration 
      enforcement is solely a function of the Federal Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2019

  Mr. Quigley (for himself, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. 
 Garcia of Illinois, and Ms. Garcia of Texas) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To discontinue a Federal program that authorizes State and local law 
 enforcement officers to investigate, apprehend, and detain aliens in 
     accordance with a written agreement with the Director of U.S. 
  Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to clarify that immigration 
      enforcement is solely a function of the Federal Government.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting the Rights Of Towns 
against federal Enforcement contrary to Constitutional Tenets for 
Immigration Act of 2019'' or as the ``PROTECT Immigration Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF STATE AND LOCAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT 
              AUTHORITY.

    Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1357(g)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(g) Except as provided in paragraph (10) of section 103(a), in 
section 274(c), and in section 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective 
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1252c), the authority to inquire 
about or verify immigration or citizenship status and to investigate, 
apprehend, arrest, or detain an individual for a violation of this Act 
or any regulation authorized by this Act is restricted to immigration 
officers and authorized employees of the Department of Homeland 
Security and subject to limits set forth in other provisions of law.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016419EN.01000701.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-525/14) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Precious metals hallmarked in a third country in accordance with Netherlands legislation - Import into the Czech Republic after being put into free circulation - Refusal to recognise the hallmark - Consumer protection - Proportionality - Admissibility))

(2016/C 419/08)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Vláčil and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by refusing to recognise the hallmarks of the WaarborgHolland assay office, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by refusing to recognise the hallmarks of the WaarborgHolland assay office, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34 TFEU;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission, the Czech Republic and the French Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission, the Czech Republic and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

1

---
No. 10-5623.

#### Stephen Moreland Redd, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 932, 131 S. Ct. 328,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7236.

178 L. Ed. 2d 214,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.

Same case below, 48 Cal. 4th 691, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192, 229 P.3d 101.
B-F2130E (9/23) ©2023 Magellan Health, Inc. Sou

Sources: CallMeBetty, Tiny Buddha

Healthy holiday boundaries, 

the best gift you can give yourself

Holidays can be a happy time; however, seasonal stress can affect us all. Readying ourselves to 

cope with holiday stress requires a mindset shift. One way to reduce stress so you can better enjoy 

the holidays is to set healthy boundaries.

A boundary is a rule or line you put in place to protect your mental health 

and wellbeing. You can prepare yourself for the holidays by thinking about 

how to respond to questions and topics that may come up.

How to develop healthy boundaries

• Do not prioritize other people’s comfort over your own. There is no shame in asking people to acknowledge your

feelings and needs.

• Be honest and stand up for yourself. It’s the most truthful and authentic way to interact with others.

• Remember you can control how you handle things but not how people react. Some people may be troubled by your

words—their reaction is theirs and not yours to take on.

• Prepare for scenarios that require thoughtful responses, such as hosting or attending events, questions about your

relationships or body, political discussions, etc.

• Empower yourself and your choices. It is okay to arrive late, leave early, skip an event or drive your own car.

Setting and maintaining boundaries takes practice and patience. You may need to explain your position a few times with 

certain people. If someone repeatedly violates your boundaries, remember you can ask people to change their behavior, 

but you can’t force them to change. You have the option to limit your interactions or reduce contact with that person if 

you find it necessary.

Choosing how to deal with people and activities that drain your energy creates space for activities that bring you joy.

Help is available. Your Employee Assistance Program is completely confidential and available

24/7/365. Give us a call at 1-866-580-9046 (TTY 711) or visit MagellanAscend.com to get started.