alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Silvergraph International, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, James R. Simpson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 (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.

Date:  May 20, 2010

                                                           /*s/ James R. Simpson*

James R. Simpson

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
# C_2022213EN.01001401.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — V A, Z A v TP

(Case C-645/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 10 - Subsidiary jurisdiction in matters of succession - Deceased person habitually resident at the time of his or her death in a State that is not bound by Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Deceased person who is a national of a Member State and has assets in that Member State - Obligation for the court of that Member State seised to examine of its own motion the criteria as regards its subsidiary jurisdiction - Appointment of an administrator of the estate)

(2022/C 213/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in the appeal on a point of law: V A, Z A

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State must raise of its own motion its jurisdiction under the rule of subsidiary jurisdiction referred to in that provision where, having been seised on the basis of the rule of general jurisdiction established in Article 4 of that regulation, it finds that it has no jurisdiction under that latter provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(3)
              - (-)multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(12)
              - arizona(12)
              - (-)arkansas(1)
              - california(49)
              - colorado(3)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - florida(3)
              - georgia(1)
              - hawaii(43)
              - idaho(3)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(3)
              - maryland(5)
              - massachusetts(3)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(4)
              - nevada(5)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(3)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(3)
              - north dakota(3)
              - oregon(6)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(7)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(5)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(3)
              - virginia(5)
              - washington(16)
              - west virginia(2)
              - wisconsin(8)
              - wyoming(6)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        September 20, 2018        Habitat Connectivity: Assessing Threats and IDing Conservation Actions
FIVE STAR FOOD SERVICE, INC. v. Florence Ruby RUSSELL

2160273

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
This project was conducted by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (www.lrc.rpi.edu) under FAA contract 13‐G‐009.  This

summary was prepared by the Lighting Research Center on behalf of the FAA.

Further details: Don Gallagher, donald.gallagher@faa.gov;  http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/aviation.asp.

Federal Aviation Administration 

Research Highlights 

Study Goals

The organic light‐emitting diode

(OLED) is a new solid‐state light

source that has the potential to

be used in runway and taxiway

signs. Researchers from the

Lighting Research Center (LRC) at

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute investigated the

feasibility of using OLEDs in airport runways and

taxiways signs, which depends on whether OLEDs can

meet the prescribed

requirements for

luminance and

lifetime (luminance

maintenance over

time). FAA Advisory

Circular 150/5345‐

44K calls for

luminance values in the range of 30–100 cd/m2 for the

background and for the white and yellow legends of  

L‐858 type signs.

Research Activities

To determine if OLEDs could meet the luminance

requirements for airfield signs, commercial product

samples were obtained for an early study in 2010. Using

an imaging photometer, luminance measurements were

taken of red, green, blue, and white OLED panels (2 inch

by 2 inch) when driven at the manufacturer‐

recommended current values. The results indicated that

OLEDs have acceptable

luminance. In 2015, an

improved performance

white OLED panel (3

inch by 3 inch) was

procured and tested. A

white OLED is typically made using a mixture of red,

green, and blue organic emitting materials. Luminance

measurements were taken at an ambient temperature of

40°C while driving the panel at the rated current of 386

mA. The average luminance measured was 7790 cd/m2, a

significant improvement over the earlier 2010 panels.

The different color components of the 2015 white OLED

panel were measured by considering the tristimulus

values gathered by an imaging photometer as a function

of time for 9,000 hours. The measured luminance values

are shown in the graph below. Assuming a 30% light

output reduction (L70) as the end of life, the blue

component had a lifetime of 2,500 hours, and the green

and red components had a lifetime of 6,000 hours. These

values are much lower than the typical of life of LEDs

and linear fluorescent lamps. Lifetime is an area where

OLED technology needs to improve to compete with

other light sources for the target application. Because the

OLED luminance values are much higher than required,

under‐driving is an option for extending lifetime.

Present white OLED technology can meet the

luminance requirements of airport runway and taxiway

signs. However, lifetime needs further improvement for

OLED technology to compete with other light sources.

OLED Light Sources 

for Airfield Signage

The relative light level of red, green, and blue OLEDs as

a function of time, represented by the tristimulus values

X, Y, and Z at an ambient temperature of 40°C.

OLED light panels
# C_2021289EN.01003201.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD

(Case C-591/20) (1)

(2021/C 289/47)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---
Order entered October 22, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 00088 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00089 - CR EDUARDO ENRIQUE ALFA RO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Colli n County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 401 - 82025 - 2011 and 401 - 82026 - 2011



### O RDER Appellee’s unopposed motion for extension of time in which to file a brief is GRANTED . Appellee’s brief is deemed timely filed and the Clerk is DIRECTED to file appellee’s bri ef as of the date received.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS PRESIDING JUSTICE
**Exhibit 10.3**

 

AMENDMENT TO STOCK AGREEMENT 

 

This AMENDMENT TO STOCK AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is dated as of April 12, 2004. 

 

PREAMBLE 

 

Reference is made to that certain Stock Agreement (the “Stock Agreement”) dated as of September 24, 2003and by and among Pioglobal First Russia, Inc., a Delaware corporation and indirect majority owned subsidiary of Harbor Global Company Ltd., a Bermuda limited duration company, Pioglobal Omega, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and indirectwholly owned subsidiary of Parent, and Andrei Uspensky, an individual (the “Subscriber”). 

 

The Pioglobal First Russia, Inc. was converted to and formed as a limited liability company having the name Pioglobal First Russia, LLC (the“Company”) under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “Act”) on April 12, 2004 upon the filing of a Certificate of Conversion by Pioglobal First Russia, Inc, pursuant to Section 266 of the DelawareGeneral Corporation Law, and the filing by the Company of its Certificate of Formation with the Delaware Secretary of State pursuant to the Act. 

 

In connection with such conversion and formation of the Company, each issued and outstanding share of common stock, $.01 par value per share, of PioglobalFirst Russia, Inc. (the “Common Stock”) has been converted into the right to receive one (1) voting unit of the Company (each a “Unit” and collectively the “Units”), and upon the delivery to theCompany of one or more stock certificate(s) representing such shares of Common Stock, the Subscriber will be issued one (1) Unit of the Company in exchange for every one (1) share of Common Stock so surrendered. 

 

The Subscriber, as a stockholder and director of Pioglobal First Russia,Inc., has consented to the conversion of the Company into a Delaware limited liability company. 

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

1. All of the representations, warranties, acknowledgements, covenants and agreements made by the Subscriber in the StockAgreement shall relate to the Units from and after the conversion and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Company and its successors and assigns. 

 

2. All of the continuing obligations of Pioglobal First Russia, Inc., if any, shall be the obligations of the Company.

 

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to Stock Agreement to be executed as ofthe date first set forth above. 

 
COMPANY:PIOGLOBAL FIRST RUSSIA, LLCBy: 
/s/ Donald H. Hunter
Name: Donald H. HunterTitle: TreasurerMAJORITY STOCKHOLDERPIOGLOBAL OMEGA, LLCBy: 
/s/ Donald H. Hunter
Name: Donald H. HunterSUBSCRIBERBy: 
/s/ Andrei Uspensky
Name: Andrei Uspensky
 

2
MV SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellant, v. REDUS FLORIDA HOUSING, LLC, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4688

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 20, 2019

R. Daniel Noey and Wesley D. Fina of Schutt, Schmidt & Noey, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

W. Douglas Childs and Brian M. Pederson of Childs, Hester & Love, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee Redus Florida Housing, LLC.

Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record and Appellant's response to our order to show cause *739on jurisdiction, we find that the claim remaining pending below is interrelated with the claim on appeal, depriving us of jurisdiction. The order on appeal disposes of only count one of Appellee's two-count third-party complaint against Appellant. Count one seeks contractual and common-law indemnity. Count two, still pending below and stayed pending this appeal, alleges breach of contract for Appellant's failure to obtain insurance and indemnify Appellee. Both counts relate to the same underlying tort claim against Appellee, and both counts arise out of the same management agreement between the two parties to this appeal. This is a classic case of a piecemeal appeal. *See**S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb* , 304 So.2d 97, 99-100 (Fla. 1974) (holding that piecemeal review is disfavored and the lower tribunal should rule on all interrelated claims to avoid the potential need for successive appeals).

This appeal does not fall within the scope of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k), allowing immediate appeals of certain partial final judgments. That rule requires that the cause of action disposed of in the order appealed not be "interdependent with other pleaded claims," and that is not the case here. *Id.; see also**Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Peacock's Excavating Serv., Inc.* , 186 So.3d 6, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where claim still pending below involved same facts and contracts as the order appealed).

DISMISSED .

Rowe, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Antonio Deyelle WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3484

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019

Kendell K. Ali, of Ali & Blankner, Orlando, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, EDWARDS and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 21.1**SUBSIDIARIES OF ORIGEN FINANCIAL, INC.Origen Financial L.L.C. (Delaware)     – In Texas, d/b/a Origen Manufactured Home Financial, L.L.C.Origen Servicing, Inc. (Delaware)Origen Manufactured Home Financial, L.L.C. (Delaware)Origen Securitization Company, L.L.C. (Delaware)Origen Special Purpose II, L.L.C. (Delaware)Origen Financial of South Dakota, L.L.C. (Delaware)Origen Credit L.L.C. (Delaware)Origen MH Contract Company, L.L.C. (Delaware)OF Insurance Agency, Inc. (Louisiana)Origen Insurance Agency, L.L.C. (Virginia)Origen Residential Securities, Inc. (Delaware)Origen Financial of Puerto Rico, L.L.C (Delaware)Origen CMO Residential Holding Company, L.L.C (Delaware)
# C_2021349EN.01003501.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — KO v Commission

(Case T-389/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance - Habitual residence - Period of training)

(2021/C 349/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KO (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 18 October 2019 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders KO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders KO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
Norman R. GRINDLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4990

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Tony Gerald ELLISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5276

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
David NICHOLS v. STATE of Mississippi

2017-CT-01292-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: February 4, 2019 Closed: March 14, 2019

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
EXHIBIT 32

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

                      18 U.S.C 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB of Mass Megawatts Wind
Power,  Inc.  (the  Company) for the period ended October 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jonathon
Ricker,  the  Principal  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge:

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.


Dated:    12/14/06                      By:  /s/ Jonathan Ricker
        --------------                     ---------------------------------
                                           Jonathan Ricker
                                           Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Chief Financial Officer and
                                           Principal Accounting Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geomagnetic Storm

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - (-)virginia(1)

## By Year

              - (-)2021(1)

staff profileWilliam Leith
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350





In connection with the filing of the Annual Report of First Northern Community Bancorp (“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 (“Report”), I, Jeremiah Z. Smith, the chief financial officer of the Company, certify pursuant to section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,





(i)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





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





/s/ Jeremiah Z. SmithJeremiah Z. Smith








March 20, 2012
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, Robert W. Piper, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of IWO Holdings, Inc.; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.    The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a)    Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.