alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**I, John P. Calamos, Sr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Calamos Asset Management, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand 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 byothers within 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 andpresented in this report 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 control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.November 10, 2005        /s/ John P. Calamos, Sr.  John P. Calamos, Sr.  Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019065EN.01001601.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH v Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften

(Case C-552/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Harmonisation of fiscal legislation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Special scheme for travel agents - Supply of a holiday residence rented from other taxable persons - Additional services - Ancillary or principal services - Reduced rate of tax - Accommodation supplied by a travel agent in his own name))

(2019/C 65/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alpenchalets Resorts GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt München Abteilung Körperschaften

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the mere supply by a travel agent of holiday accommodation rented from other taxable persons or such a supply of a holiday residence combined with the supply of additional ancillary services, regardless of the importance of those ancillary services, each amount to a single service covered by the special scheme for travel agents. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the mere supply by a travel agent of holiday accommodation rented from other taxable persons or such a supply of a holiday residence combined with the supply of additional ancillary services, regardless of the importance of those ancillary services, each amount to a single service covered by the special scheme for travel agents.

| 2. | Article 98(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of travel agent services consisting of the supply of holiday accommodation, covered by Article 307 of that directive, cannot be subject to a reduced tax rate or one of the reduced rates set out in Article 98(2). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 98(2) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of travel agent services consisting of the supply of holiday accommodation, covered by Article 307 of that directive, cannot be subject to a reduced tax rate or one of the reduced rates set out in Article 98(2).

---

(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

---
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 Digital Network International Alliance, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Eppie Wong Yuk Ping, CFO and a director 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:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Eppie Wong Yuk Ping



Eppie Wong Yuk Ping,

 CFO and a director

October 19, 2006
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 28 Filed 07/25/01 Page 1 of 1 PageID 73
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

HEATH HOLDINGS USA, INC., 

ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:03-CV-1634-G

)

)

)

)

)

OPINION AND ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this

case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge, I am of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the

Magistrate Judge are correct and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of

the court.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the findings, conclusions and

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED as the

findings and conclusions of the court.

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01634-G Document 335 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 8313
- 2 -

It is further ORDERED that the court finds that Associated International

Insurance Co. and its attorneys have violated the provisions of Rule 11(b), and

1. Paragraphs 10 and 21 through 25 (Count III - Fraud) of

Associated’s first amended complaint against the Heath

Defendants, filed on October 31, 2003, are STRICKEN;

2. Paragraph No. 27 of Associated’s original answer to

Heath Defendants’ counterclaim filed on March 23, 2004,

is STRICKEN; and

3. The Heath Defendants’ motion for sanctions is referred

back to Magistrate Judge Sanderson recommendation with

respect to the other sanctions to be awarded, including but

not limited to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and

other expenses.

November 30, 2005.

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01634-G Document 335 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 8314
Case 2:03-cv-00225-J Document 19 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 134
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 87 Filed 01/12/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID 266
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 87 Filed 01/12/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID 267
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 87 Filed 01/12/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID 268
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1129

SUSAN M. PARRAGA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, U. S. Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA98-2051-CCB) Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 2, 2000 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and Samuel G. WILSON, Chief United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James J. Nolan, Jr., John B. Bratt, PIERSON, PIERSON & NOLAN, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Perry F. Sekus, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Susan M. Parraga appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee summary judgment in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Parraga v. Henderson , No.CA-98-2051-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 5, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2019093EN.01001402.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Deutsche Post AG v Hauptzollamt Köln

(Case C-496/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - The Union Customs Code - Article 39 - Status of authorised economic operator - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 - The second subparagraph of Article 24(1) - Applicant not a natural person - Questionnaire - Collection of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 6 and 7 - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Articles 5 and 6 - Processing of personal data))

(2019/C 93/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code, read in the light of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may require an applicant for AEO status to send to them the tax identification numbers, allocated for the purposes of collecting income tax, concerning solely the natural persons who are in charge of the applicant or who exercise control over its management and those who are in charge of the applicant’s customs matters, and the details of the tax offices responsible for the taxation of all those persons, to the extent that that data enables those authorities to obtain information on serious or repeated infringements of customs legislation or taxation rules or on serious criminal offences, committed by those natural persons and relating to their economic activity.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---
EXHIBIT 10.1


AMENDMENT NO. 9


TO


SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED


CINEDIGM CORP. 2000 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN







AMENDMENT NO. 9, dated as of September 27, 2016 (this "Amendment"), to the Second Amended and Restated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan (as amended, the "Plan") of Cinedigm Corp. (f/k/a Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp. and f/k/a Access Integrated Technologies, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation").


WHEREAS, the Corporation maintains the Plan, effective as of June 1, 2000; and


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation deems it to be in the best interest of the Corporation and its stockholders to amend the Plan in order to increase the maximum number of shares of the Corporation's Class A Common Stock, par value $.001 per share, which may be issued and sold under the Plan from 1,430,000 shares to 2,380,000 shares.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1. The first sentence of Section 5.2 shall be revised and amended to read as follows:


    "The total number of shares of Stock (including Restricted Stock, if any) optioned or granted under this Plan during the term of the Plan shall not exceed 2,380,000 shares."


2. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first set forth above.


3. In all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed and remains in full force and effect.


 



	 	CINEDIGM CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
		
By:

	
/s/ Christopher J. McGurk


	 	 	
Name:  Christopher J. McGurk


	 	 	
Title:  Chairman & CEO
Kem MINER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5132

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MARK ASHELY WHITE, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-0728-D

VS. §

 §

T. SIMPSON, WARDEN, et al., §

 §

Defendants. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the findings and

conclusions are correct and are therefore adopted. Accordingly, defendants’ January 23, 2006

motion for summary judgment is granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice by judgment

filed today.

SO ORDERED.

April 18, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00728-D-BD Document 104 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 568
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00232-CR

LONNIE DEAN CODY, 

JR.

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Lonnie Dean Cody, Jr. attempts to appeal from his conviction for 

unlawful possession of a firearm. However, the trial court’s certification of his 

right to appeal states that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.”

On July 6, 2011, this court notified appellant about the statement on the 

trial court’s certification and informed him that unless he or any party desiring to 

continue to the appeal filed with the court, on or before July 18, 2011, a response 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal may be dismissed. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. We have received no response. Therefore, we 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: November 3, 2011
STATE of Louisiana v. Dexter ALLEN

NO. 2018-KH-1963

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
Robert FLORA v. Julia FLORA

2160468

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 16, 2009 

l0909 

Order 

 

September 16, 2009 

138542 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138542 

 COA: 285677 

Jackson CC: 07-003772-FH 

JAMES EDWARD HENDERSON, JR., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 3, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 KELLY, C.J., and CAVANAGH and MARKMAN, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
PROMISSORY NOTE


$300.00                                                       June 30, 2004
                                                          Newport Beach, CA


     On Demand FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned promises to pay in
lawful money of the United States of America to the order of Cygni
Capital, LLC, nominee or assignee, the sum of THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($300.00), with interest from June 30, 2004 until paid at the rate of
ten percent (10%) per annum.

     Should interest not be paid, it shall thereafter bear interest as
the principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded shall not exceed
an amount equal to simple interest on the principal at the maximum
rate permitted by law.  The undersigned hereby waives presentment of
payment, protest, notice of protest, notice of nonpayment, and
diligence in bringing suit, and further agrees, in case suit is
instituted, to collect this Promissory Note or any portion thereof, to
pay such additional sum for attorneys' fees as the Court may adjudge
reasonable in such suit.


                                   CYGNI INVESTMENTS, INC.

                                   By:  /s/ Carl Suter
                                        Carl Suter, President
**Exhibit 32.02**

 

**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 KMG America Corporation Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 (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 KMG America Corporation.

 

| Date:  November 8, 2006 | /s/ Scott H. DeLong III                                                                                       |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Scott H. DeLong III

Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)

  |

                

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to KMG America Corporation and will be retained by KMG America Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016243EN.01003601.xml

| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/36

---

Action brought on 25 April 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL)

(Case T-185/16)

(2016/C 243/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Make up for ever SA (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Caron, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative trade mark containing the word elements ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL’ — EU trade mark No 3 371 341

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 5 February 2016 in Case R 3222/20014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | conclude that the semi-figurative EU trade mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL’ No 3 371 341 is valid for all of the goods and services covered by the filing; |
| --- | --- |

—

conclude that the semi-figurative EU trade mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER PROFESSIONAL’ No 3 371 341 is valid for all of the goods and services covered by the filing;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | refer the case back to the EUIPO for further action, if necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the EUIPO for further action, if necessary;

| — | order the company L’Oréal to pay the costs arising from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO, the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and the present proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the company L’Oréal to pay the costs arising from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO, the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and the present proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 49 Filed 11/07/03 Page 1 of 2 PageID 269
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 49 Filed 11/07/03 Page 2 of 2 PageID 270