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 Quarterly Report
of Bluefly, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Kara B. Jenny, Chief Financial Officer 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 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.





/s/ Kara B. JennyKara
      B. JennyChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      6, 2010
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive
Officer of Nicholas Financial, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that
the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. Nicholas Financial, Inc.By: /s/ Peter L. VosotasPeter L. VosotasChief Executive OfficerJune 29, 2005
# C_2020371EN.01001301.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/13

---

Order of the General Court of 23 July 2020 — Palacio Domecq v EUIPO — Domecq Bodega Las Copas (PALACIO DOMECQ 1778)

(Case T-354/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2020/C 371/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Palacio Domecq, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Otero Iglesias, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Domecq Bodega Las Copas, SL (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2019 (Case R 867/2018-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Domecq Bodega Las Copas and Palacio Domecq.

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---
# C_2019295EN.01004301.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/43

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Filippi v Parliament

(Case T-416/19)

(2019/C 295/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Livio Filippi (Carpi, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Douglas R. Young, 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 31, 2005 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: September 9, 2005



By:

/s/ Douglas R. YoungName:

Douglas R. YoungTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Medallion Financial Corp. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                          |  |                  
|------------------------- |  | -----------------
|By:                       |  | /s/ Larry D. Hall
|Senior Vice President and
|Chief Financial Officer  
|                         
|Date: March 27, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 00-30014

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

PAULINE DOUGLAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COTTONLAND RESTAURANT, Etc., ET.AL.,

Defendants,

BONO ENTERPRISES; COTTONLAND INN; COTTONLAND

RESTAURANT; AMERICAN CENTRAL INSURANCE CO; J. L.

COOK, doing business as Cottonland Inn, doing business as Bono

Enterprises,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-2218

November 28, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
* Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-2-

PER CURIAM:*

Pauline Douglas injured her left foot, left ankle, and back in a fall on the steps at the

Cottonland Inn. Douglas alleges that the cause of the fall was either two grapes left on the steps that

precipitated her slip, or cracks on the steps that caught the heel of her shoe (or a combination of

both). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cottonland because Douglas

provided no evidence that the grapes had been present for a length of time sufficient to put

Cottonland on constructive notice. We now affirm.

On appeal Douglas makes two basic arguments as to why summary judgment was

inappropriate. First, she argues that the steps were defective insofar as they were cracked,

independent of the presence of the grapes. This argument fails, however, because parties are not

permitted to allege new facts on appeal in order to overcome a summary judgment. See Smith v. Olin

Chemical Corp., 555 F.2d 1283, 1285 (5th Cir. 1977). On the record before us, Douglas’s own

deposition testimony forecloses the possibility of a crack theory when she states that while she did

see “maybe a little dent,” she was sure it was the grapes that caused her fall.

Second, Douglas argues there is a factual issue over whether Cottonland’s clean-up policies

were adequate. The cleaning staff at Cottonland departs between 2 and 4 p.m. daily; when they are

gone, inspection and clean-up becomes a residual responsibility of the operator of the inn. The lack

of formal clean-up procedures after a certain hour, however, do not relieve Douglas of her burden

of proving the temporal element of constructive notice. See Hernandez v. National Tea, Inc., 734

So.2d 958, 960 (La.App.5 Cir. 1999) (lack of written inspection policies and clean-up training
-3-

insufficient to prove constructive notice); cf. La. Rev. St at. Ann. § 2800.6(b)(3) (“In determining

reasonable care, the absence of a written or verbal uniformcleanup orsafety procedure isinsufficient,

alone, to prove failure to exercise reasonable care.”). 

Because Douglas has failed to offer proof that the grapes were on the steps for any amount

of time before her fall, she has not met her burden of proving constructive notice, and summary

judgment was appropriate.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Texas United Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Don Stricklin, President and Chief Executive Officer 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 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 operating results of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ L. Don Stricklin                 
|L. Don Stricklin                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|March 16, 2006
# C_2021217EN.01003901.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set)

(Case T-515/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered community design representing a building block from a toy building set - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Features of appearance of a product to be necessarily reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to permit the interconnection with other products - Designs whose purpose is to allow multiple assembly or connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system - Article 8(1) to (3) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2021/C 217/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lego A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter and L. E. Appel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 April 2019 (Case R 31/2018-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Delta Sport Handelskontor and Lego.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 April 2019 (Case R 31/2018-3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 April 2019 (Case R 31/2018-3);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO and Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Lego A/S. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO and Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Lego A/S.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermol CHIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6614.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

*984Jermol Chin, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jermol Chin seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Chin’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). Chin’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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 Certified Public Accountants




The Board of Directors
Ambanc Holding Co., Inc.

We  consent  to  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  following   registration
statements:

   File No. 333-50973 on Form S-8, and
   File No. 333-50975 on Form S-8

of Ambanc Holding Co., Inc. of our report dated  February 12, 1999,  relating to
the consolidated  statements of financial  condition of Ambanc Holding Co., Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related  consolidated
statements of operations,  changes in shareholders'  equity,  and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report
appears in the  December 31, 1998 Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Ambanc  Holding
Co., Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Albany, New York
March 26, 1999
# C_2023045EN.01003601.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/36

---

Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — Eland Oil & Gas v Commission

(Case T-471/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/57)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-92725 on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1985 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the
1993 Employee Stock Ownership Incentive Plan, the 1993 Non-Employee Directors
Stock Ownership Incentive Plan, the 1999 Employee Stock Option Plan and the
Employee Gift Program, and No. 333-130791 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. 2005 Restricted Stock Grant Plan, of our report
dated March 3, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Kentucky Bancshares, Inc., which report appears in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.


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

Lexington, Kentucky
March 28, 2008





65
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Serrano, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered on April 19, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur&emdash;Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch, Fein and Lynch, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, John Mutch, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Peregrine Systems, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material 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 quarterly report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying 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 we have:



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 and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



| |  | Date:                                                         |  | February 15, 2005
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
| |  | /s/JOHN MUTCHJohn Mutch
President and Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
#### In re FAWCETT'S WILL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 20, 1907.)

In the matter of proving the instrument propounded for probate as and for the last will and testament of John Fawcett, deceased.

No opinion. Decree of Surrogate’s Court affirmed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 1 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 1

  Informing the President of the United States that a quorum of each 
                          House is assembled.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 5, 2011

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Informing the President of the United States that a quorum of each 
                          House is assembled.

    Resolved, That a committee consisting of two Senators be appointed 
to join such committee as may be appointed by the House of 
Representatives to wait upon the President of the United States and 
inform him that a quorum of each House is assembled and that the 
Congress is ready to receive any communication he may be pleased to 
make.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020061EN.01004501.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/45

---

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-319/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Amendment of the voluntary additional pension scheme - Regulatory act - Deadline for bringing an action - Out of time - Act not open to challenge - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 61/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Lilliers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Z. Nagy and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018, C 466, p. 8), the letter of 26 March 2019 from the President of the Parliament rejecting the administrative appeal brought against the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament and all acts adopted as a consequence thereof.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Bruno Gollnisch shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Bruno Gollnisch shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---