alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION:

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


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



Certification of Principal Financial Officer

In  connection  with  the Quarterly Report of Sentry Technology Corporation (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I, Joan
E.  Miller,  Principal  Financial  Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that,  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          and 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/ JOAN E. MILLER
                          -------------------------------------------------
                           Joan E. Miller
                           Vice President -Finance and Treasurer
                           (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

                           November 14, 2008


A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form  within  the  electronic  version  of  this     written
statement  required by Section 906, 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  certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by  such  Act,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the  "Exchange  Act").  Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent  that  the  Company  specifically  incorporates  it  by  reference.
# L_2007071EN.01001801.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 71/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 71/18

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 2013/2006 of 19 December 2006 amending Regulations (EEC) No 404/93, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 247/2006 as regards the banana sector

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 384 of 29 December 2006
  )

Official Journal of the European Union L 384 of 29 December 2006

On page 17, in Article 3 (Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 247/2006), in point 2 (new Article 24a):

for:

‘1.   By 15 March 2007, Member States shall submit to the Commission the draft amendments to their overall programme to reflect the changes introduced by Regulation (EC) No 2011/2006 (1).

read:

‘1.   By 15 March 2007, Member States shall submit to the Commission the draft amendments to their overall programme to reflect the changes introduced by Regulation (EC) No 2013/2006 (2).

---

(1)  See page 1 of this Official Journal.’

1

(2)  OJ L 384, 29.12.2006, p. 13.’

2

---
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that on May 27, 2021 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ASTM International (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM activities originating between February 17, 2021 and May 24, 2021 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at                     *http://www.astm.org.*

                    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226). The last notification with the Department was filed on February 22, 2021. A notice was filed in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 8, 2021 (86 FR 18327).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2021-15816 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
# C_2019093EN.01007101.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/71

---

Action brought on 11 January 2019 — Pablosky v EUIPO — docPrice (mediFLEX easystep)

(Case T-21/19)

(2019/C 93/92)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pablosky, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: docPrice GmbH (Koblenz, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark mediFLEX easystep — Application for registration No 15 730 898

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 76/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | reverse the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

reverse the contested decision;

| — | reject the EUTM No 15 730 898 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the EUTM No 15 730 898 in its entirety as regards products included in classes 10 and 25;

| — | award the costs to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs to the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### WG SECURITY PRODUCTS, INC.; EAS Sensorsense, Inc., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. TYCO INTERNATIONAL, LTD.; Tyco Fire & Security; ADT Security Services, Inc.; Sensormatic Electronics Corp., Defendants—Appellants.

No. 07-55744.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 21, 2008.*

Filed Dec. 18, 2008.

Mark Labaton, Esq., Kreindler and Kreindler LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Eric T. Chaffin, Esq., Seeger Weiss, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Patrick A. Long, Esq., Long & Williamson, Santa Ana, CA, Richard Simses, Esq., Abbott, Simses & Kuchler, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: GRABER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TRAGER,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable David G. Trager, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendants appeal the entry of a judgment by the district court based upon a settlement put on the record by the attorneys for both sides. We affirm.

Defendants’ effort to distinguish this case from *Doi v. Halekulani Corp.,*276 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir.2002), is unpersuasive. Although Defendants argue that they did not intend to be bound until a written settlement agreement was executed, that qualification was not stated when the settlement was put on the record. It surely was not made known to the district court.

*354To the contrary, the court went to great lengths to confirm that a binding settlement had been reached. At the outset of the telephonic conference, the district court said: “[I]f the case has settled, you can put it on the record. If the case hasn’t settled, let me know that....” After counsel for Defendants stated the essential terms of the agreement, the court asked if both parties agreed that the enumerated terms were the essential terms, and the attorneys for both sides unmistakably agreed. Reference was made to getting a “final written document” but the settlement was conditioned neither upon a signed written agreement nor upon any additional terms. Indeed, the district court confirmed the agreement by stating: “The case is settled. If for some reason you don’t get your final documentation, you can sue to enforce this settlement....” Counsel for Defendants said nothing to correct or contest that understanding.

It is not necessary for a district court to go to such lengths to confirm a settlement agreement, but in the context of such assurances, a later argument that a party had no intent to be bound is futile. The court’s ability to manage its calendar would be hamstrung by any other result.

AFFIRMED.

***

 ThiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### PUNSKY, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Actions 1 and 2.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 15, 1907.)

Actions by Theodore Punsky against the city of New York.

No opinion. Motions to dismiss appeals denied.
# C_2020054EN.01004001.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/40

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 4 December 2019 — A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

(Case C-895/19)

(2020/C 54/44)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Question referred

Is Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (as amended), (1) in conjunction with Article 178 thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the exercise of the right to deduct input tax in the same accounting period as that in which the tax due was payable on the transactions constituting Community acquisitions of goods subject to entry of the tax due on those transactions in the appropriate tax declaration submitted within the mandatory period (in Poland, three months) following the end of the month in which the tax liability arose in relation to the goods and services acquired?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

---
#### Deitsch Textiles, Inc., Respondent, v New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.) Monezel Holding Corp., Respondent, v New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

In two consolidated actions to recover payments under insurance policies, defendants in action No. 1 appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence, J.), dated August 5, 1981, which set aside the original verdict in favor of plaintiff in action No. 1, on the ground of inadequacy, severed the two actions and directed a new trial on the issue of damages in action No. 1, (2) an order of the same court (Morton, J.), dated May 20,1982, which denied defendants’ motion following retrial in action No. 1 to set aside the verdict, and (3) a judgment of the same court (Morton, J.), entered June 10,1982 in favor of plaintiff in action No. 1 in the principal sum of $170,000; defendant in action No. 2 appeals from a judgment of the same court (Lawrence, J.), entered September 14, 1981, which was in favor of the plaintiff in action No. 2 in the principal sum of $200,000. By order dated April 18, 1983, this court dismissed the appeals from the orders, citing *Matter of Aho*(39 NY2d 241, 248). We also reversed the judgments and granted a new trial as to all issues *{Deitsch Textiles v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,*93 AD2d 853). By judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 13,1983, a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendants. By order dated July 2,1984, the Court of Appeals, following a direct appeal to that court, reversed the judgment entered September 13, 1983 and this *212court’s order dated April 18, 1983, which was brought up for review, and remitted the matter here for reconsideration of the facts (62 NY2d 999).

Appeals from the orders dismissed *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248, *supra).*

Upon consideration of the facts, judgments affirmed.

Respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The issues presented provide no basis for reversal. Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.
# C_2019230EN.01005601.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/56

---

Action brought on 20 April 2019 — gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Representation of a fork on a green background)

(Case T-267/19)

(2019/C 230/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: gastivo portal GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and N. Achilles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Fourchette SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a fork on a green background) — Application for registration No 15 474 356

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 in Case R 1211/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Samuel A. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

No. 81-66 Civ. T-K.

United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Tampa Division.

March 5, 1982.

*57Robert L. McDonald, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff.

Gary J. Takacs, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for defendant.

ORDER

KRENTZMAN, Chief Judge.

This is a suit which alleges negligent medical treatment of plaintiff at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case is barred by the *Feres*doctrine, a judicially created exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346*et seq.*(1976). Defendant attaches affidavits which establish that plaintiff was an enlisted man at the Air Force Base at the time of the alleged tort. Plaintiff opposes the motion but does not contest the affidavits concerning plaintiffs military status. Plaintiff argues that the *Feres*doctrine should not apply because its rationale has been rejected.

The U. S. Supreme Court, in *Feres*v. *United States,*340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1949), held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty from the negligence of others in the armed forces. Some of the rationale of the decision has subsequently been limited by the Court in other contexts. *See, e.g., United States v. Muniz,*374 U.S. 150, 83 S.Ct. 1850, 10 L.Ed.2d 805 (1963). However, the doctrine has recently been reaffirmed in *Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. United States,*431 U.S. 666, 97 S.Ct. 2054, 52 L.Ed.2d 665 (1976), and has been applied by the Fifth Circuit. *See, e.g., Stanley v. C. I. A.,*639 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1981). The Fifth Circuit, moreover, has applied it in a situation similar to this case. In *Vallance v. United States,*574 F.2d 1282 (5th Cir. 1978), the court held that because a plaintiff was treated at a military hospital solely because of his status as an enlisted military person, “whatever happened to him in that hospital and during the course of that treatment had to be ‘in the course of activity incident to service.’ ” *Id.*at 1283 (citing *Shults v. United States,*421 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that defendant’s motion to dismiss should be, and it is, GRANTED, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., for lack of jurisdiction. *See Stanley v. C. I. A., supra*at 1157, 1158. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Rule 41(b), F.R.Civ.P.
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 63 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That the Secretary of the Senate is requested 

3 to return to the House of Representatives the enrolled bill 

4 (S. 2367, an Act to strike the word ‘‘lunatic’’ from Fed5 eral law, and for other purposes). Upon the return of such 

6 bill, the action of the Speaker of the House of Representa7 tives in signing it shall be rescinded. The Secretary of the 

8 Senate shall reenroll the bill with the following correction: 

9 In section 2(b)(1)(B), strike ‘‘in subsection (b)’’ and insert 

10 ‘‘in subsection (j)’’. 

Passed the Senate December 18 (legislative day, December 17), 2012. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 63 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Correcting the enrollment of S. 2367.
# C_2019423EN.01005601.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/56

---

Order of the General Court of 10 October 2019 — Algebris (UK) v Anchorage Capital Group v SRB

(Case T-2/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms - Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - No ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 423/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Algebris (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Anchorage Capital Group LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Soames, lawyer, R. East, Solicitor, N. Chesaites and D. Mackersie, Barristers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: A. Valavanidou, I. Georgiopoulos and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis, V. Del Pozo Espinosa De Los Monteros, G. Barthet and C. Schwedler, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the ‘decision of the SRB, notified to the applicants on 18 December 2018, not to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español, SA’.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Algebris (UK) Ltd and Anchorage Capital Group LLC shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 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
               September 30, 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: November 6, 2003


                                        /s/ Steven A. Schmidt
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Steven A. Schmidt
                                        Title: Executive Vice President and
                                               Chief Financial Officer



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.