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




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Inyx, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
      the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rima Goldshmidt, Chief
      Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the registrant.









By: /s/
      Rima
      Goldshmidt





Rima
      Goldshmidt,


Vice
      President and Acting
      Chief Financial Officer





March
      31,
      2006
B.H., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4723

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN RE: Medical Review Panel for the Claim of Warren ALBARADO

Patricia Albarado v. University Healthcare System, L.C. D/B/A Tulane University Hospital and Clinic

NO. 2018-CC-1888

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

Denied.
# C_2019399EN.01008801.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/88

---

Action brought on 27 September 2019 — Alfa Acciai v Commission

(Case T-656/19)

(2019/C 399/107)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alfa Acciai SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: D. Fosselard, G. Carnazza, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those set out in Case T-655/19, Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti v Commission.

---
lmfa-ex102_15.htm



EXHIBIT 10.2

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF CAOLLINN GOULD

 

This (“Amendment”) is dated August 30, 2016, (“Effective Date”) to the Employment Agreement dated as of October 22, 2015, by and between LM Funding America, Inc., Delaware incorporated corporation (the “Company”), and Carollinn Gould (“Executive”).

WHEREAS: Executive has agreed to reduce his or her cash Salary compensation from the original agreed upon amount pro-rata, commencing on the effective date of this Amendment and continuing thereafter for the duration of the term of the original Employment Agreement at the request of the Board of Directors. This reduction is in connection with cost saving measures and a general reduction of salaries to the Company’s senior management. 

NOW THEREFORE: Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement, titled, “Compensation” is hereby deleted in its entirety and hereby substituted with the following, to read:

(a)The Company agrees to pay to Executive a salary in cash (the “Salary”), as compensation for the services to be performed by Executive, at the rate of $150,000 $84,000 per calendar year, paid in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll procedures and subject to applicable withholding. Based on Executive’s performance, Executive will receive a merit increase for calendar year 2016, effective January 1, 2016, in an amount to be determined by the Board in its sole discretion. During the Term, the Board shall have the right to increase, but not decrease, the Salary, except the Board may decrease the Salary in connection with a base salary decrease that is generally applicable to all members of the Company’s senior management. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Executive will be eligible for additional annual salary merit increases during the Term beginning in 2016 based on the evaluation of Executive’s performance as determined by the Board in its sole discretion. Executive’s salary as in effect from time to time shall constitute the “Salary” for purposes of this Agreement.  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.  

LM FUNDING AMERICA, INC.

By: /s/ Bruce M. Rodgers

      Bruce M. Rodgers, Chief Executive Officer

 

EXECUTIVE

/s/ Carollinn Gould

Carollinn Gould
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_maps(15)
              - products_publications(43)
              - multimedia_audio(3)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(3)
              - multimedia_image(6)
              - multimedia_image-141771(6)
              - multimedia_video(12)
              - multimedia_video-149194(8)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - (-)alaska(1)
              - california(1)
              - colorado(1)
              - massachusetts(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(1)

staff profileAdrian M Bender
**Exhibit 32**

 

ORIENT-EXPRESS HOTELS LTD.

 

Section 1350 Certification

 

The undersigned hereby certify that this report of Orient-ExpressHotels Ltd. for the periods presented fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for theperiods presented in the report.

 

 
| /s/ P.M. White     |   | /s/ M. O’Grady               |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
| Paul M. White           |   | Martin O’Grady               |
| President and           |   | Vice President – Finance and |
| Chief Executive Officer |   | Chief Financial Officer           |

 

 

Dated: November 6, 2009

 

 

[A signed original of this written certification has been provided toOrient-Express Hotels Ltd. and will be retained by Orient-Express Hotels Ltd.and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.]

 

----
# C_2021228EN.01000802.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Lifosa’ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-75/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 29(1) - Article 32(1)(e)(i) - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 70(1) - Article 71(1)(e)(i) - Determination of the customs value - Transaction value - Adjustment - Price including delivery at the border)

(2021/C 228/10)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant:‘Lifosa’ UAB

Respondent: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Third parties: Kauno teritorinė muitinė, ‘Transchema’ UAB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 29(1) and Article 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 70(1) and Article 71(1)(e)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the customs value of imported goods, the costs actually incurred by the producer for their transport to the place where they have been brought into the customs territory of the European Union should not be added to the transaction value of the goods when, according to the agreed delivery terms, the obligation to cover those costs lies with the producer, even though those costs exceed the price actually paid by the importer, provided that that price corresponds to the real value of the goods, a matter which is for the referring court to establish.

---

(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.

---
Daniel BATTERBEE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3172

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 18, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the circuit court order under review is a nonappealable order and no basis has been shown for invoking certiorari jurisdiction. See Tsikuris v. State, 913 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA2005) ; Sirmons v. State, 775 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - (-)products_data(2)
              - products_publications(6)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - american samoa(1)
              - california(7)
              - colorado(11)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(6)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(5)
              - georgia(1)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - kansas(3)
              - maine(3)
              - massachusetts(4)
              - montana(3)
              - nevada(1)
              - new hampshire(2)
              - new jersey(8)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(12)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oklahoma(3)
              - oregon(1)
              - pennsylvania(4)
              - puerto rico(4)
              - rhode island(6)
              - south carolina(1)
              - (-)u.s. virgin islands(2)
              - vermont(3)
              - virginia(5)
              - washington(2)

## By Year

Data Release        May 1, 2019        Projected flooding extents and depths based on 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year wave-energy return periods, with and without coral reefs, for the States of Hawaii and Florida, the Territories of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands,

Data Release        September 7, 2021        Projected flooding extents and depths based on 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year wave-energy return periods for the State of Florida, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands for current and potentially restored coral reefs
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 105645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30833]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 27, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 16, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1084 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-852, K2025-853.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-30833 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Everline JACKSON, Appellant, v. William WILSON, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1327

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gennie BAGLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Krystal TAYLOR, R.N., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5123

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 31, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Carolyn MCCORMICK, Appellant, v. Janis E. BROWN, Former Wife and Terence M. Brown, Former Husband, Appellees.

No. 1D18-2802

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 31, 2018

Carolyn McCormick, pro se, Appellant.

Cindy Lasky of The Lasky Law Firm, Jacksonville, for Appellee Janis E. Brown; Terrance A. Jones of the Law Office of Terrance A. Jones, Green Cove Springs, for Appellee Terence M. Brown.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of Appellant's response to the order to show cause, the Court has determined that the Order on Former Husband's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and Former Wife's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is not a final order. Because the order contemplates additional proceedings, it does not constitute a conclusion to the court's judicial labor. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Roberts, Ray, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
# C_2022051EN.01000801.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — WD v job-medium GmbH, in liquidation

(Case C-233/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Article 7(1) - Right to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken before the end of the employment relationship - Early termination of the employment relationship by the employee)

(2022/C 51/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WD

Defendant: job-medium GmbH, in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which no allowance is payable in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in respect of the current and last year of employment, where the worker unilaterally terminates the employment relationship early and without cause; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which no allowance is payable in lieu of paid annual leave not taken in respect of the current and last year of employment, where the worker unilaterally terminates the employment relationship early and without cause;

| 2. | It is not necessary for the national court to verify whether the worker was unable to take the leave to which he or she was entitled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is not necessary for the national court to verify whether the worker was unable to take the leave to which he or she was entitled.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---
RICK ROSS TOURING, LLC, and William L. Roberts, Appellants, v. TOTAL ACCESS TALENT, INC., etc., Appellee.

No. 3D18-1411

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 2, 2019

Law Office of Leslie P. Quezaire, and Leslie P. Quezaire (Lauderhill); Donaldson & Chilliest, LLP, and Xavier R. Donaldson (New York, NY), for appellants.

Manos Schenk, PL., and Tom J. Manos, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, C.J., LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_publications(7)
              - multimedia_image(25)
              - multimedia_image-141771(22)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141775(3)
              - multimedia_video(43)
              - multimedia_video-149194(15)
              - multimedia_video-149195(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(1)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)

## By Location

              - california(2)
              - (-)hawaii(3)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - montana(1)

## By Year

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 1997        Geologic map of Mauna Kea, showing generalized distribution of lava...

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 1997        Geologic map of Mauna Kea with generalized surface distribution of ...

Charts or Graphs        June 15, 2018        Kilauea Volcano -- Lower East Rift Zone lava flows and fissures
Exhibit
10.3.1


 


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

TO THE 1999 STOCK PLAN OF

UNIVERSAL ACCESS GLOBAL HOLDINGS INC.


 


Universal Access Global Holdings Inc. (the
“Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of
Delaware General Corporation Law, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:


 


FIRST: 
That the Corporation’s 1999 Stock Plan (the “Plan”) be, and hereby is,
amended by inserting the following as the new last two sentences of paragraph 1
of Section 3 of the Plan:


 


Notwithstanding the forgoing,
the number of shares of common stock reserved for issuance under the Plan in
2004 is increased from 500,000 to 1,250,000 shares.  This increase does not modify the number of authorized shares
that may be issued under the Plan in subsequent years.


 


SECOND: 
That in accordance with Section 15(a) of the Plan the Board of
Directors of the Corporation through its Compensation Committee adopted the
foregoing amendment at a meeting held on March 15, 2004, and directed that
such amendment be submitted to the stockholders of the Corporation entitled to
vote thereon for their consideration, approval and adoption thereof.


 


THIRD: 
That in accordance with Section 15(b) of the Plan the stockholders
of the Corporation entitled to vote thereon approved the foregoing amendment at
the Corporations 2004 annual stockholders meeting held on May 27, 2004.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being
the Secretary of the Corporation, for the purpose of amending the Plan in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Plan, under penalties of perjury
does hereby declare and certify that this is the act and deed of the
Corporation and that the facts stated herein are true, and accordingly has
hereunto signed this Amendment to the Plan as of May 27, 2004.


 


 


	
   

  	
  UNIVERSAL ACCESS GLOBAL HOLDINGS INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /S/ Richard L. Monto

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Richard L. Monto, Secretary
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40813 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SERGIO ARTURO MARIN-AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-98-CR-132-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sergio Arturo Marin-Avila appeals his guilty-plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States after having been previously convicted of an aggravated felony and deported in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). He argues that his guilty plea was not intelligently and voluntarily given because the district court did not advise him that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were applicable and that the district court had the authority to depart above or below the Guidelines; heNo. 98-40813 -2- argues that these variances from the procedures set forth in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 affected his substantial rights. While the district court failed to advise Marin-Avila of the applicability of the Guidelines and its authority to depart from the Guideline range, Marin-Avila has not shown that the district court’s variance from Rule 11 was “a material factor affecting [his] decision to plead guilty.” See United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc).
AFFIRMED.
STATE EX REL. Leonard Emanuel BLACKBURN v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 17-KH-2007

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 14, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WASHINGTON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated three applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in state collateral proceedings in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

HUGHES, J., would grant to order an evidentiary hearing.