alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Steven P.
Berry, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2007
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

Date: November 9, 2007



By:

/s/ Steven P. BerryName:

Steven P. BerryTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

Officers
Certificate

---

March 4, 2011

MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC.One Bryant Park

  3rd Floor  Structured Credit Trading

  New York, NY
10036

PREFERREDPLUS, PPLUS
TRUST AND INDEXPLUS CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, Maryann Joseph,
Vice President of The Bank of New York   Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York), a New York    corporation (the Trustee),
hereby certifies in such capacity that, based on her knowledge, the Trustee has complied,
in all material respects, with all conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee
under the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements dated February 20, 1998 between Merrill
Lynch Depositor, Inc. as depositor (the Depositor) and the Trustee, as
successor to United States Trust Company of New York, as trustee and securities
intermediary (the Securities Intermediary), in each case as amended by a
series supplement between the Depositor, the Trustee and the Securities Intermediary for
each trust series listed in the attached schedule.

| |                                                                                                   |        |                | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | -------------- | 
| | Very truly yours, 
The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly

      The Bank of New York), as Trustee |       
| | By:                                                                                               | /s/    | Maryann Joseph | 
| |                                                                                                   |        |               
| |                                                                                                   | Name:  | Maryann Joseph | 
| |                                                                                                   | Title: | Vice President | 





---






---
**OFFICE OF**  **THE AlTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  June 9, 1939 Eonornble**Foster** Davis CountyAttorney **Foard** County Crotall,Texas Dear Sir:

YOU have r0QUe8 tiOn8 which you have 8ubm t0 t3118Wer tW0 qU08-
urt et any t&8 der making such ta1y ettectlve? t1 Do 2 ad th 8n8waredIn the afiirmain tie ca.88

of Stabe 61 rel.

Your8 wry truly ATTOR?iiY

GEiiiW.hL

OF TEXAS

Bi23:FL Bruce 7:. Bryant A88i8tfUlt A~'FliOVED
#### William M. Schnell, Appellant, v Nancy Fitzgerald, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 390]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered February 1, 2011, as granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first and second causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs assertions on appeal, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff asserted three causes of action. The first cause of action, which expressly alleged common-law negligence, and the second cause of action, which alleged a violation of General Obligations Law § 11-106, were duplicative, as they both, in actuality, sounded in common-law negligence. On appeal, the plaintiff concedes that the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action, which was premised on General Municipal Law § 205-e.

A defendant property owner who moves for summary judgment in a personal injury action arising from an alleged hazardous or defective condition on his or her property has the burden of establishing that he or she did not create the hazardous or defective condition or have actual or constructive notice of its existence *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]; *McKeon v Town of Oyster Bay,*292 AD2d 574, 574-575 [2002]). To give rise to constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent, and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67*NY2d at 837). When a defect is latent and would not be discoverable upon a reasonable inspection, constructive notice may not be imputed *(see Lal v Ching Po Ng,*33 AD3d 668 [2006]; *Curiale v Sharrotts Woods, Inc.,*9 AD3d 473, 475 [2004]). As to the plaintiffs first two causes of action, the defendant established her entitlement to judgment as a *1296matter of law by demonstrating that she neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the latent defect which caused a section of an outdoor staircase on her property to collapse as the plaintiff exited her home.

In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition that caused him to fall *(see Lal v Ching Po Ng,*33 AD3d at 668; *Curiale v Sharrotts Woods, Inc.,*9 AD3d at 475; *McKeon v Town of Oyster Bay,*292 AD2d at 575).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first and second causes of action. Rivera, J.E, Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
exv10w20











Exhibit 10.20




SUMMARY OF THE REGISTRANT’S NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION




     The Company pays each of its non-employee directors $30,000 annually or $60,000 annually to
its lead director. In addition, non-employee directors receive the following committee-related fees
annually: (1) $7,500 for participating on the Audit Committee or $15,000 for chairing the
committee; (2) $5,000 for participating on the Compensation Committee or $15,000 for chairing the
committee; (3) $2,500 for participating on the Nominating and Governance Committee or $5,000 for
chairing the committee; (4) $7,500 for participating on the Strategy Committee.




     In accordance with the Company’s 2005 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, upon
appointment, non-employee directors receive a one-time grant of an option to purchase 25,000 share
of common stock. Effective March 3, 2009, the vesting period changed from immediately vesting to
vesting prorata over one year. Annually, non-employee directors receive an option to purchase
20,000 shares of common stock, which also vest prorata over one year. The exercise price of these
options is the fair market value on the date of grant. Each such option expires ten years after the
date of grant.




     The Company reimburses its non-employee directors for reasonable expenses incurred in
connection with attending board and committee meetings.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



         Pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
the undersigned officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies that to the undersigned's knowledge:

         (1)  the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
              ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
              requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: May 12, 2003


                                         /s/ Terrance D. Paul
                                         --------------------
                                         Name:  Terrance D. Paul
                                         Title:  Chief Executive Officer


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ss.906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED
BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS
STAFF UPON REQUEST. THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE
FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
# C_2019263EN.01002301.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 3 January 2019 — Wilo Salmson France SAS v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

(Case C-10/19)

(2019/C 263/28)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wilo Salmson France SAS

Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București — Administrația Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Nerezidenți

By Order of 5 June 2019, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling manifestly inadmissible.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7297

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. EDWARD DEAN GEATHERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:04-cr-00472-PJM-2; 8:07-cv-00201-PJM) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 23, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Dean Geathers, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Edward Dean Geathers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Geathers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 333-92725 of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc., of
our report dated March 1, 2005 on the consolidated financial statements
of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004 as
included in the registrant's annual report on Form 10-K.


/s/Crowe Chizek and Company LLC
Crowe Chizek and Company LLC

Lexington, Kentucky
March 29, 2005



91
# C_2021028EN.01004201.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — inMusic Brands v EUIPO — Equipson (Marq)

(Case T-687/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Marq - Earlier national and international figurative marks MARK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Declaration of partial invalidity)

(2021/C 28/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: inMusic Brands, Inc. (Cumberland, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: D. Rose, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Equipson, SA (Silla, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 (Case R 1759/2018-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Equipson and inMusic Brands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders inMusic Brands, Inc., to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders inMusic Brands, Inc., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
Exhibit 10.3FOURTH AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT     THIS AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of June 30, 2006, byand between RENAISSANCE LEARNING, INC., a Wisconsin corporation (“Borrower”), and WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (“Bank”).RECITALS     WHEREAS, Borrower is currently indebted to Bank pursuant to the terms and conditions of thatcertain Credit Agreement between Borrower and Bank dated as of December 1, 2003, as amended fromtime to time (“Credit Agreement”).     WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower have agreed to certain changes in the terms and conditions setforth in the Credit Agreement and have agreed to amend the Credit Agreement to reflect saidchanges.     NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are herebyacknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Credit Agreement shall be amended as follows:     1. Section 1.1(a) is hereby amended by deleting “May 31, 2007” as the last day on which bankwill make advances under the Line of Credit, and by substituting for said date “May31, 2008,” withsuch change to be effective upon the execution and delivery to Bank of a promissory note dated asof June 30, 2006 (which promissory note shall replace and be deemed the Line of Credit Note definedin and made pursuant of the Credit Agreement) and all other contracts, instruments and documentsrequired by Bank to evidence such change.     2. Section 4.9 (a) is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following substituted therefore:         “SECTION 4.9. (a) Total liabilities divided by Tangible Net Worth not greater than 1.25 to1.0, measured as of the end of each fiscal quarter, with “Total Liabilities” defined as theaggregate of current liabilities and non-current liabilities less subordinated debt, and with“Tangible Net Worth” defined as the aggregate of total stockholders’ equity plus subordinated debtless any intangible assets.”     3. Except as specifically provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Credit Agreementremain in full force and effect, without waiver or modification. All terms defined in the CreditAgreement shall have the same meaning when used in this Amendment. This Amendment and the CreditAgreement shall be read together, as one document.     4. Borrower hereby remakes all representations and warranties contained in the CreditAgreement and reaffirms all covenants set forth therein. Borrower further certifies that as of thedate of this Amendment there exists no Event of Default as defined in the Credit Agreement, nor anycondition, act or event which with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both wouldconstitute any such Event of Default.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the dayand year first written above.                        WELLS FARGO BANK,RENAISSANCE LEARNING, INC.   NATIONAL ASSOCIATION         By: /s/ Mary Minch   By: /s/ Daniel Frazier           Title: Chief financial Officer   Title: Vice President
MALT  LIMITED
                                   P.O.  Box  59
                             Rarotonga,  Cook  Islands


                                December  28,  2000



United  Trading.Com
c/o  Myers  Porter,  LLP
380Technology  Blvd.,  Suite  250
Irvine,  CA  92618

Attn:  Mr.  Norman  Wright.

Re:  United  Trading.Com  Sport Book  Software license agreement dated September
20,  2000

Dear  Mr.  Wright:

Regarding  the  referenced Agreement entered into on September 20, 2000, between
Malt  Limited  .A.  and  United Trading.Com (formerly United Casino Corp.), Malt
Limited  is  by  this  letter  notifying  United Trading.Com that, due to Malt's
current  inability  to  provide  and  bring onto the Internet, the Internet site
which  was  previously  planned  to  be  used  to  make the sports book software
provided  by the subject agreement available to players over the Internet, it is
canceling the subject agreement effective immediately.  It is hoped by Malt that
when  the required Internet site is finally available that a new contract can be
negotiated.

Yours  truly,

Malt  Limited



By:       s/Directserv  Limited
          ------------------------


Name:  ___________________________

Title:       Director
       ---------------------------




                                     115
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 846 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 80 

Lafayette Street in Jefferson City, Missouri, as the 

Christopher S. Bond United States Courthouse. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 846 ES

1 SECTION 1. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND UNITED STATES 

2 COURTHOUSE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

4 located at 80 Lafayette Street in Jefferson City, Missouri, 

5 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Christopher S. 

6 Bond United States Courthouse’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the United States courthouse referred to in sub10 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Chris11 topher S. Bond United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the Senate July 26, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 846 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located 

Courthouse. souri, as the Christopher S. Bond United States at 80 Lafayette Street in Jefferson City, Mis-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Susan Jones, Also Known as Patricia Howard, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), both rendered February 23, 1982, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under indictment No. 253/80, and assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under indictment No. 867/81, upon her pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001030452
<NAME> MOLL INDUSTRIES INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                          11,708
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,667)
<INVENTORY>                                     35,868
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,432
<PP&E>                                         155,643
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,450)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 334,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,454
<BONDS>                                        230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                    (19,525)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   334,202
<SALES>                                        101,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,549
<CGS>                                           90,752
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (362)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,917
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,355)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,594)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,584)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.96)
        

</TABLE>