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 Alliance Distributors Holding Inc., a
Delaware Corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
Barbara A. Ras, Chief Financial Officer/Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer, does hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to her 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 Company.

Date: March 22, 2006

                        /s/ Barbara A. Ras
                        --------------------------------------
                        Barbara A. Ras
                        Chief Financial Officer/Principal
                        Financial and Accounting Officer
Marcus HENDERSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0620

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EX PARTE Charles E. HOBDY

CR-16-1111

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
# C_2020068EN.01003701.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/37

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) (United Kingdom) made on 6 January 2020 – Daimler AG v Walleniusrederierna Aktiebolag, Wallenius Wilhelmsen ASA, Wallenius Logistics AB, Wilhelmsen Ships Holding Malta Limited, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS, ‘K’ Line Holding (Europe) Limited, ‘K’ Line Europe Limited, Nyk Group Europe Limited, Compañia Sudamericana de Vapores SA

(Case C-2/20)

(2020/C 68/40)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Daimler AG

Defendants: Walleniusrederierna Aktiebolag, Wallenius Wilhelmsen ASA, Wallenius Logistics AB, Wilhelmsen Ships Holding Malta Limited, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS, ‘K’ Line Holding (Europe) Limited, ‘K’ Line Europe Limited, Nyk Group Europe Limited, Compañia Sudamericana de Vapores SA

Question referred

| 1. | Does a national court have jurisdiction to determine a claim for damages under Article 85 EEC/Article 81 EC where the conduct complained of involved the provision of international maritime services exclusively between non-EEC/EC ports in the period prior to 1 May 2004 and the national court was not a relevant authority in a Member State for the purposes of Article 88 EEC/Article 84 EC? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a national court have jurisdiction to determine a claim for damages under Article 85 EEC/Article 81 EC where the conduct complained of involved the provision of international maritime services exclusively between non-EEC/EC ports in the period prior to 1 May 2004 and the national court was not a relevant authority in a Member State for the purposes of Article 88 EEC/Article 84 EC?

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the negative, does a national court have jurisdiction to determine such a claim in respect of the provision of international maritime services exclusively between non-EEC/EC ports in the period between 1 May 2004 and 18 October 2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the negative, does a national court have jurisdiction to determine such a claim in respect of the provision of international maritime services exclusively between non-EEC/EC ports in the period between 1 May 2004 and 18 October 2006?

---
Exhibit 23

CONSENTS OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-58298 and the related Prospectus (2000 Stock Option Plan) of
Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. on Form S-8 of our report dated February 27, 2003 (which report on the consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion
and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the adoption by Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 142, "Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets", effective January 1, 2002, and SFAS No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities", as amended by SFAS No. 137 and 138, effective
January 1, 2001) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Orient-Express Hotel Ltd. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2002.

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-102576 and the related Prospectus (Common Share Shelf Offering) of Orient-Express
Hotels Ltd. on Form S-3 of our report dated February 27, 2003 (which report on the consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph referring to the adoption by Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets",
effective January 1, 2002, and SFAS No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities", as amended by SFAS No. 137 and 138, effective January 1, 2001)
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Orient-Express Hotel Ltd. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2002.

|/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP          |  | 
|--------------------------------- |  | 
|New York, New York
March 28, 2003 |  | 

78

---

QuickLinks
# C_2022073EN.01000301.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Overijssel — Netherlands) — XXXX v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-217/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Article 7(1) - Right to paid annual leave - Level of remuneration - Reduced remuneration due to incapacity for work)

(2022/C 73/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Overijssel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XXXX

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(1) 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 must be interpreted as precluding national provisions and practices under which, where a worker who is incapacitated for work due to illness exercises his or her right to paid annual leave, the reduction, following the incapacity for work, of the amount of remuneration that he or she received during the period of work preceding that during which annual leave is requested, is taken into account to determine the amount of remuneration that will be paid to him or her in respect of his or her paid annual leave.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---
Exhibit 99.2
                                  ------------



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Rubicon  Medical  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-Q/10-QSB  for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Dennis Nasella, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 Company.



Dated:  May 13, 2003                           By  /s/ Dennis M. Nasella
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Dennis Nasella
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               (Principal Financial Officer)


A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Rubicon Medical Corporation and will be
retained by Rubicon  Medical  Corporation  and furnished to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2021452EN.01003402.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — MHCS v EUIPO — Lidl Stiftung (Shade of the colour orange)

(Case T-274/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative EU mark depicting a shade of the colour orange - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Nature of the mark - Colour mark - Right to be heard - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 452/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MHCS (Épernay, France) (represented by: O. Vrins and B. Raus, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and K. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2020 (Case R 2392/2018-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. & MHCS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 February 2020 (Case R 2392/2018-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 February 2020 (Case R 2392/2018-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by MHCS; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by MHCS;

| 3. | Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by MHCS. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by MHCS.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
CASE NO. 01-15-00335-CV

_________________________________ 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT HOUSTON, TEXAS 

__________________________________ 

CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC 

APPELLANTS 

V.

5433 WESTHEIMER, LP; 5433 WESTHEIMER, GP LLC; and SONGY5433 

WESTHEIMER, 

APPELLEES 

__________________________________ 

AMENDED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE CLERK’S RECORD 

_________________________________ 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

 COMES NOW, CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC

Appellants herein, and move this Court to extend the File Clerk’s Record Tex. R. 

App. P. 5. 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00335-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/1/2015 11:12:42 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/1/2015 11:12:42 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
In support thereof, Appellants would show as follows:

I

The Appellant did not pay for the District Clerk’s record. There was a 

misunderstanding and Appellant was under the impression that all monetary requirements 

had been met. Appellant understands that there were several notifications issued by the 

Court; however, Appellant did not open an e-mail and the postcards were never brought 

to his attention.

II

On April 14, 2015, Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal was assigned to the First 

Court of Appeals. In error, Appellant did not request either Record until the first week in 

May; when the error was discovered, Appellant requested both records immediately.

III.

A reasonable period should be allowed prior to the filing of the records, 

Appellants asks that this Court allow an additional thirty (30) days to allow time for the 

Clerk’s record to be filed. Appellant filed the credit card information for the cost of the 

clerk’s record on November 11, 2015. The payment or request is not showing in the 

clerk’s on line record. Appellant will call the Harris County District Clerk’s office for a 

status update and will contact this Court if there are any problems. Further, Appellant 

has not received a receipt for payment and that will be part of the conversation with the 

Clerk’s office.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, THESE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellants pray that this 

Court extend the time for the filing of Clerk’s record for thirty (30) days and to grant 

such other and further relief to which Appellants may show themselves justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted,

OPPEL & GOLDBERG, P.L.L.C.

_____/s/_Jeffrey Wells Oppel________________

Jeffrey Wells Oppel

TSBN 15291800

1010 Lamar, Suite 1420

Houston, Texas 77002

713-659-9200 (Phone)

713-659-9300 (Fax)

joppel@ogs-law.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that in compliance with Rule 21a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, 

a copy of the foregoing instrument was properly served via Electronic Filing on this the 

1

st day of December, 2015, on the attorney-of-record as follows:

Lansford O. Ireson, Jr.

IRESON & WEIZEL, PLLC

9720 Cypresswood Dr., Suite 238

Houston Texas 77070

(713) 228-1160

(713) 228-1161

__/s/_Jeffrey Wells Oppel ________

Jeffrey Wells Oppel
Digna ACOSTA, Appellant, v. Jorge OMAR, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1223

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**Certifications of**

**Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**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 of Design Within Reach, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ray Brunner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: November 8, 2007 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Design Within Reach, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John D. Hellmann, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of theCompany, 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; and 

2. Thatinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: November 8, 2007 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless ofany general incorporation language in such filing. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to DesignWithin Reach, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CY 2023 Part 139 CertAlert Log Updated 2/13/2023 Page 1 of 2

ARP

FAA

Airports

Airport Safety and Operations Division

Calendar Year 2023 Part 139 CertAlert Log 

NUMBER DATE TOPIC CONTACT

23-08 3 October 

2023

Considerations for Use of Unmanned 

Aircraft in Support of Airport Wildlife 

Dispersal

John R. Weller

(202) 267-3778

Amy Anderson

(202) 267-7205

23-07 13 September 

2023

Availability of Fluorine Free Foam (F3) 

on the Navy’s Qualified Products List 

(QPL)

Marc Tonnacliff or Jim 

Price

(202) 267-8732

23-06 8 September 

2023

Review and/or Revision of Aircraft 

Towing/Ground Handling Procedures 

for the Safety of the Wing and/or Tail 

Walkers

Kelvin K. Ampofo

(202) 267-6457

23-05 23 June 2023 Release of Advisory Circular (AC) 

150/5210-23A, ARFF Vehicle and 

High Reach Extendable Turret 

(HRET) Operation, Training and 

Qualifications, and Addendum

Marc Tonnacliff

(202) 267-8732

23-04 23 June 2023 Jet Fuel Contamination with Diesel 

Exhaust Fluid (DEF)

Dale Williams

(202) 267-4179

23-03 27 April 2023 Airport-Owned Approach Lighting 

System Oversight

Thomas E. Mize

(202) 267-9382

23-02 16 Feb. 2023 Airport Safety Management System James Schroeder

(202) 267-4974

23-01 12 Jan. 2023 New Military Specification for 

Performance-Based Standards for 

Fluorine-Free Aircraft Fire Fighting 

Foam

• Par. 2c updated 8/28/2023

Marc Tonnacliff

(202) 267-8732
ARP SOP on Registering Websites, Web Apps, Updated 12/30/2016 Page 

2 of 2

Content Owners, and Developers ARP
# C_2021053EN.01002601.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2020 — W.J. v L.J. and J.J. represented by their legal representative A.P.

(Case C-644/20)

(2021/C 53/34)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: W.J.

Defendants: L.J. and J.J. represented by their legal representative A.P.

Question referred

Must Article 3(1) and (2) of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/941/EC of 30 November 2009 (OJ 2009 L 331, p. 17), (1) be interpreted as meaning that a creditor who is a child may acquire a new habitual residence in the State in which he or she was wrongfully retained if a court orders the return of the creditor to the State in which he or she habitually resided immediately prior to the wrongful retention?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 331, p. 17.

---
# C_2021481EN.01002701.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VYBRANCE)

(Case T-635/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark JUVÉDERM VYBRANCE - Late payment of the appeal fee - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Article 101(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Restitutio in integrum)

(2021/C 481/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2020 (Case R 1014/2020-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dermavita Company and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Byron Spencer LLOYD

No. 2018-KH-0107

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 28, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of *Brady v. Maryland* , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Relator also fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application 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 that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated 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.
Travis D. SMITH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3314

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 7, 2018 Rehearing Denied January 17, 2019

Travis D. Smith, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DENIED.

Wolf, Makar, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.