alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(B)

          CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER
         RELATING TO THE ANNUAL REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

     I, Arthur B. Winkleblack, Director, Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of H.J. Heinz Finance Company, a Delaware corporation ("Heinz Finance"),
hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

     1. Heinz Finance's annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
        April 27, 2005 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended; and

     2. The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
        Heinz Finance.

Date: July 25, 2005

                                          By: /s/ ARTHUR B. WINKLEBLACK
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Arthur B. Winkleblack
                                              Title:  Director, Vice President
                                            and Chief
                                                 Financial Officer
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 8 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the appointment of Stephen M. Case as a 

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents 

5 of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than 

6 Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the resigna7 tion of Phillip Frost of Florida is filled by the appointment 

8 of Stephen M. Case of Virginia. The appointment is for 

9 a term of 6 years, effective on the date of enactment of 

10 this joint resolution. 

Passed the Senate March 15, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 8 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the appointment of Stephen M. Case 

the Smithsonian Institution. as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, FOR INNOVACOM, INC., AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         25,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (91,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,000
<PP&E>                                         490,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (139,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 532,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,309,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       25,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (10,802,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   532,000
<SALES>                                        77,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               77,000
<CGS>                                          160,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9,385,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               261,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,061,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,630,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (13,632,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,555,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,187,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.68)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Jack Gregory, certify that:



(1)    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Premier Holding Corp. for the period ended June 30, 2010;





(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 report;





(3)     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





(4)   The Registrants 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 have:





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





(c)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented 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





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





(5)

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





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





(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: August13, 2010 | Jack Gregory
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
#### Vitalia C. Nelson, Respondent, v 40-01 Northern Boulevard Corp. et al., Appellants.

[943 NYS2d 216]—

*852In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), entered July 12, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell over a single-step riser while leaving a restaurant owned by the defendants. The step was made of orange-colored tile and stood in contrast to the black rug located on the floor below the step. The plaintiff had traversed the step, without incident, approximately two hours earlier, when she first entered the restaurant. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that, just prior to the accident, she was looking “forward.”

While a landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner *(see Basso v Miller,*40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]), a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition that is not inherently dangerous *(see Tyz v First St. Holding Co., Inc.,*78 AD3d 818, 819 [2010]; *Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist,*70 AD3d 932, 933 [2010]; *Rivas-Chirino v Wildlife Conservation Socy.,*64 AD3d 556 [2009]). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that the single-step riser was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous *(see Tyz v First St. Holding Co., Inc.,*78 AD3d at 819; *Weiss v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist.,*70 AD3d at 933; *Bretts v Lincoln Plaza Assoc., Inc.,*67 AD3d 943, 944 [2009]; *Groon v Herricks Union Free School Dist.,*42 AD3d 431, 432 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11474]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Joan Mitchell” at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco, California, the Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, Maryland, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Matthew R. Lussenhop,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-15962 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
(May 28, 1985)

#### Balport Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, v New York Telephone Company, Respondent.

In an action to recover the balance due under a written contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Isseks, J.), dated February 6, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff claims that the terms of the written contract at issue entitle it to receive payment for certain work it performed under the contract. While defendant does not deny that the work was satisfactorily completed, it does contend that the payment for the work performed was included in payment for other work performed. The contract, however, is ambiguous as to whether plaintiff is entitled to separate payment for the work it performed. Accordingly, since there are issues of fact concerning interpretation of the contract, summary judgment may not be granted *(see, Andre v Pomeroy,*35 NY2d 361). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# C_2021028EN.01005102.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/51

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2020 — Leonardo v Frontex

(Case T-849/19 R II)

(Interim measures - Public service contracts - Application for interim measures - New application - New facts - Lack of urgency)

(2021/C 28/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Leonardo SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Esposito, F. Caccioppoli and G. Calamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard, C. Georgiadis, A. Gras and S. Drew, Agents, and by M. Vanderstraeten, F. Biebuyck and V. Ost, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures for a stay of execution of the contract notice FRONTEX/OP/888/2019/JL/CG, published on 18 October 2019 by Frontex, entitled ‘Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) for Medium Altitude Long Endurance Maritime Aerial Surveillance’, and the acts included in the annex, the Notices for changes or additional information, the questions and answers published by Frontex under the lex specialis, the minutes of the Informative Meeting held at Frontex’s premises on 28 October 2019, the contract award decision, and any other prior, associated or subsequent act.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2019348EN.01001601.xml

| 14.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/16

---

Action brought on 10 July 2019 – ZU v EEAS

(Case T-499/19)

(2019/C 348/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of the EEAS of 31 August 2018 and 10 January 2019, implementing the note of the Medical Service of 30 August 2018, by deducting sick leave; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the EEAS of 31 August 2018 and 10 January 2019, implementing the note of the Medical Service of 30 August 2018, by deducting sick leave;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and duty of care, inflating cost estimates leading to unjustified attribution to the applicant of responsibility for not appearing for a medical check in Brussels. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and duty of care, inflating cost estimates leading to unjustified attribution to the applicant of responsibility for not appearing for a medical check in Brussels.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers with an indication of deliberate intent to undermine the applicant due to personal bias. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers with an indication of deliberate intent to undermine the applicant due to personal bias.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment with regard to the question whether the applicant’s legal situation had changed and a failure to analyse thoroughly why responsibility was attributed to the applicant for not appearing for a medical check. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment with regard to the question whether the applicant’s legal situation had changed and a failure to analyse thoroughly why responsibility was attributed to the applicant for not appearing for a medical check.

---
# C_2021035EN.01004801.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — easyCosmetic Swiss v EUIPO — UWI (easycosmetic)

(Case T-858/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark easyCosmetic - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 35/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Terheggen and S. Sullivan, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: UWI Unternehmensberatungs- und Wirtschaftsinformations GmbH (Bad Nauheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Krisch, T. Guttau and V. Wellens, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 (Case R 973/2019-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between UWI and easyCosmetic Swiss.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EasyCosmetic Swiss GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EasyCosmetic Swiss GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders UWI Unternehmensberatungs- und Wirtschaftsinformations GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders UWI Unternehmensberatungs- und Wirtschaftsinformations GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      29,783,626
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  307,713
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,733,555
<PP&E>                                      24,574,438
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,964,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,821,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,613,556
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       134,447
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,851,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,821,088
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,004,630
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,336,085
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,211,885
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (13,132,070)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (13,132,070)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,132,070)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.98)


</TABLE>