alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**          I, Denise Barton, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary ofAmerican Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC (the “Registrant”), certify that to the best of myknowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2007 of the Registrant (the “Report”): (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.     By: /s/ Denise Barton Denise Barton    Senior Vice President, Chief Financial    Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of    American Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC  Date:November 9, 2007
25
EXHIBIT 10.5 1ST AMENDMENT TO THE 7% NOTES DUE MAY 31, 2008  The undersigned Holders of the 7% Notes due May 31, 2008 and related Subscription Agreement and Security Agreement (Bridge Agreement) hereby amend the following terms of the Bridge Agreement as set forth below.  Terms contained in the Bridge Agreement that are not amended by this 1st Amendment shall remain the same and in full force and effect.  1. Section 2.0 of the Note entitled Maturity. The Maturity Date shall be extended from May 31, 2008 to June 30, 2008.  2. Section 5.0(a) of the Note entitled Optional Conversion.  The Conversion Price (as defined in the Note) shall be lowered from $.08 to the lower of $.045 per share of common stock or the price per share of common stock (referred to as X) derived from the following equation:  X = 1.08/Y  X is defined as the price per share of common stock  Y is defined as the reverse split ratio declared by the Companys Board of Directors  3. Section 9.1 of the Note entitled Default  [private company].   The first sentence of said section shall be deleted and the following sentence inserted.  If the Company does not complete the proposed merger transaction with [private company], by the Maturity Date whereby [private company] owns up to 90% of the surviving entity, the Conversion Price shall automatically be reduced to the lower of (i) $0.002 or (ii) the conversion price that would cause the majority holder of the Notes to own upon conversion the number of shares of common stock of the Company determined to be 51% of the outstanding Common Stock on a fully-diluted basis and the remaining holders of the Notes to own a pro rata number of common shares of common stock of the Company (the Liquidated Damages Shares).  4. Section 2(f) of the Security Agreement entitled GRANT OF SECURITY INTEREST. Said section shall be deleted in its entirety and the following language inserted.  (f) all equipment, except the Gunnar matt cutter;  5. The first paragraph of the Security Agreement.  The first paragraph of the Security Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and the following language inserted.  SECURITY AGREEMENT, dated as of January 23, 2008 (this "Agreement") made bySilvergraph International, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), and the undersigned subsidiaries of the Company (each a "Grantor" and collectively and together with the Company the "Grantors"), in favor of the Majority Holder of the 7% Notes (the "Buyer").   6. Section 3(c) of the Security Agreement.  Section 3(c) of the Security Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety.    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this 1st Amendment to the 7% Notes due May 31, 2008 has been executed and delivered on the date hereof by the duly authorized representative of the Company and the Holders.   COMPANY:  SILVERGRAPH INTERNATIONAL, INC.   By:/s/ James R.. SimpsonName:James R. SimpsonTitle:Chief Executive OfficerDate:April 1, 2008   HOLDERS:  ANTAEUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC  By:/s/ Cesar MoyaName:Cesar MoyaTitle:President and
Managing MemberDate:April 3, 2008   THOMAS G. SCHUSTER  /s/ Thomas G. SchusterDate:March 25, 2008   2
Daryll R. GOODING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2747

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2021028EN.01001601.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 8 October 2020 — FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-507/20)

(2021/C 28/24)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Does the practice of a Member State, pursuant to which the latter, relying on the ex tunc effects of the reduction applicable to the taxable amount in the event of definitive non-payment in accordance with Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive (1), calculates the general limitation period of five years laid down by that Member State — during which period the reduction may be applied to the taxable amount — from the time of the initial supply of goods and not from the time when the debt concerned has become irrecoverable and, relying on the expiry of that limitation period, deprives the taxable person acting in good faith of his or her right to a reduction of the taxable amount in the case of debts which have become definitively irrecoverable, under circumstances in which a number of years may have elapsed between the time of the supply of goods and the time when the debt became definitively irrecoverable and in which, at the time when the debt became definitively irrecoverable, the Member State’s legislation, unlike EU law, did not permit the reduction of the taxable amount in the case of debts that had become definitively irrecoverable, comply with the fundamental principles of proportionality, fiscal neutrality and effectiveness, particularly in the light of point 63 of the Opinion of the Advocate General in Biosafe — Indústria de Reciclagens (C-8/17), paragraph 27 of the judgment in Di Maura (C-246/16) and paragraph 36 of the judgment in T-2 (C-396/16), and having regard to the fact that a Member State may not charge an amount of VAT exceeding the tax collected by the supplier of goods or services in respect of the goods or services supplied?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
Joseph BARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1710

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019

Joseph Barker, Crawfordville, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Due to Appellant's apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated meritless, frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence in Orange County Circuit Court Case Number 2009-CF-10484, this Court issued an order on December *28726, 2018, directing Appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. *See* *State v. Spencer* , 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered Appellant's response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings regarding the above referenced case.

Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is hereby prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning the above referenced case. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. *See* *Isley v. State* , 652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough.").

Should Appellant ignore the above imposed sanction and requirement that further pleadings be signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar, this Court will direct the Clerk to provide a certified copy of this opinion and any subsequent, related opinions to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary action against Appellant. *See* § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; *Simpkins v. State* , 909 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

BERGER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
# C_2021062EN.01001302.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2020 — EZ v Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal

(Case C-606/20)

(2021/C 62/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EZ

Defendant: Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, Sociedad Unipersonal

Question referred

Is the first sentence of Article 20 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999, approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (1) and entering into force on 28 June 2004, to be interpreted as meaning that the carrier is wholly or partly exonerated from its liability for loss of baggage pursuant to Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention if a passenger transports new or as-new electronic items such as a compact camera, tablet (iPad) and wireless headphones in his checked baggage instead of his hand baggage without informing the carrier of this, even though it would have been possible and reasonable for the passenger to carry those electronic items with him in his hand baggage?

---

(1)  2001/539/EC: Council Decision of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# 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 26, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1068 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-828, K2025-829.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30810 Filed 12-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(8)
              - arizona(6)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(43)
              - colorado(1)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - florida(2)
              - georgia(1)
              - hawaii(15)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new jersey(2)
              - north carolina(2)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(3)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(13)
              - (-)west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(4)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        September 20, 2018        Habitat Connectivity: Assessing Threats and IDing Conservation Actions
# C_2020423EN.01001902.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — BQ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-380/20)

(2020/C 423/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BQ

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule
15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen
K. Gardner, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
            The Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
            The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:  August
9, 2010




/s/ Stephen K. GardnerStephen
      K. GardnerChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary
# C_2020262EN.01002001.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 8 June 2020 — HRVATSKE Šume d.o.o., Zagreb, as the legal successor to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj, p.o. Zagreb v BP EUROPA SE, as the legal successor to DEUTSCHE BP AG, as the legal successor to THE BURMAH OIL (Deutschland), GmbH

(Case C-242/20)

(2020/C 262/26)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HRVATSKE Šume d.o.o., Zagreb, as the legal successor to HRVATSKE ŠUME javno poduzeće za gospodarenje šumama i šumskim zemljištima u Republici Hrvatskoj, p.o. Zagreb

Defendant: BP EUROPA SE, as the legal successor to DEUTSCHE BP AG, as the legal successor to THE BURMAH OIL (Deutschland), GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Do actions for recovery of sums unduly paid by way of unjust enrichment fall within the basic jurisdiction established in Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1)... in respect of ‘quasi-delicts’ since Article 5(3) thereof provides inter alia:: ‘A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued ... in matters relating to ... quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do actions for recovery of sums unduly paid by way of unjust enrichment fall within the basic jurisdiction established in Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1)... in respect of ‘quasi-delicts’ since Article 5(3) thereof provides inter alia:: ‘A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued ... in matters relating to ... quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’?

| 2. | Since there is a time limit on seeking recovery of sums unduly paid in the same judicial enforcement proceedings, do civil proceedings which have been initiated fall within exclusive jurisdiction under Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 ... which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced is to have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Since there is a time limit on seeking recovery of sums unduly paid in the same judicial enforcement proceedings, do civil proceedings which have been initiated fall within exclusive jurisdiction under Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 ... which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced is to have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

---
Douglas W. BARTON v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

NO. 2018-C-2058

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

CLARK, J., would grant.
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    |   |                               |   |
|-------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: November 13, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Bryan Kenyon              |   |
|                    |   | Bryan Kenyon, CFO                  |   |
|                    |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
|                    |
Mindy Sue GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2319 5D18-2321

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO OFFER LETTER AND ADDENDUM


COMPANY POLICIES & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT







We refer you to that certain offer letter between Coach Inc. (“Coach”) and you, dated as of January 26, 2015, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto (collectively, the “Offer Letter”).  In consideration of your salary increase and equity award grant for FY 2017, the terms and conditions set forth in this addendum (the “Addendum”) will amend the terms and conditions set forth in your Offer Letter.  This Addendum will become effective as of the date you execute this Addendum.  Except as expressly supplemented by this Addendum, the terms and conditions of your Offer Letter will remain in full force and effect.  Please sign the acknowledgement at the end of this Addendum noting your understanding and agreement.








	
1.

	
Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment












The reference to the period of advance written notice of your intent to terminate your employment is changed from twelve (12) weeks to six (6) months.








	
2.

	
Garden Leave












In the event your employment is terminated for any reason (other than for “cause,” as defined in your Offer Letter) and Coach, at its sole discretion, elects to enforce its right to enjoin you from joining a competitor at any time during the period which you are subject to the non-competition covenant set forth in your Offer Letter (the “Restricted Period”), including preventing you from engaging in any of the activities prohibited by such covenant, Coach shall compensate you at your most recent base salary, subject to usual withholdings, to be paid monthly, during the remainder of the Restricted Period.  The foregoing payments will be made to you solely to the extent that severance or other termination payments are not paid to you during the remainder of the Restricted Period. Nothing herein shall impact or limit your right to receive any severance payments and benefits pursuant to the terms of your Offer Letter, except that it is expressly understood and agreed that (i) you will not be entitled to receive payments pursuant to this paragraph during any period you are receiving severance or other termination payments and (ii) your receipt of any severance or other termination payments shall not impact Coach’s right to enforce its rights under this Section 2 or otherwise.







If you do not sign and return this Addendum, it will be void and without effect and the value of your annual equity award grant will be reduced.








	
SIGNED FOR COACH

	
SIGNED BY ANDRE COHEN


	
 

	
 


	
/s/ Sarah Dunn

	
/s/ Andre Cohen


	
 

	
 


	
Sarah Dunn

	
 


	
Global HR Officer

	
 


	
Date: 9/8/16

	
Date: 9/8/16