alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report
of Bluefly, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Melissa Payner-Gregor, 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 results of operations of the Company.











/s/ Melissa
Payner-Gregor





Melissa
Payner-Gregor


Chief
Executive Officer


May 5,
2009
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 8 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

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.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the resignation of 
Phillip Frost of Florida is filled by the appointment of Stephen M. 
Case of Virginia. The appointment is for a term of 6 years, effective 
on the date of enactment of 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 as a citizen regent of 
          the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
```
Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge James B. Moran than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 CR 779 - 4,5 DATE 9/9/2004
CASE USA vs. JAMES WALLWIN, GEORGE STIMAC
TITLE
[ln the following box (a) indicate the party Gling the mutiun, ¢.g., plaintif{, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented. ]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
3 oO Answer brief to motion due,__. Reply to answer brief due_,
(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) a Trial{set for/re-sct for] on at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
ORCP4(m) OLocalRule 41.1 OFRCP41(aj(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) ff [Other docket entry] Status hearing /and or change of plea for James Wallwin and George Stimac
set for 10/13/04 at 10;00 a.m. Time is excluded based on finding the ends of justice is served by a
continuance beginning on 9/9/04 and ending on 10/13/04.
(X-T)
gy a [For further detail see order (on reverse side off/attached to) the original minute order.]
No notices requited, advised in open court,
No notices required. ‘umber af tices
Notices mailed by judge's staff SEP 1 0 2004
Notitied counsel by telephone. ete docketod
oY | Docketing to mail notices. oe (Pan 0 A
Mail AO 450 form ; — esting eps /
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
dae mailed notice
courtroom
LG deputy's to
initials =
Date/time received in ;
contral Clerk's Office railing dopuly italy
# C_2019182EN.01003701.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/37

---

Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTour)

(Case T-202/19)

(2019/C 182/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Knaus Tabbert GmbH (Jandelsbrunn, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carado GmbH (Leutkirch im Allgäu, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CaraTour — Application for registration No 15 366 313

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 in Case R 506/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject Carado GmbH’s opposition of 27 July 2016 regarding EU trade mark No 4 935 334 and German trade mark No 30 611 776 (Case B 2 742 784) in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject Carado GmbH’s opposition of 27 July 2016 regarding EU trade mark No 4 935 334 and German trade mark No 30 611 776 (Case B 2 742 784) in its entirety;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

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.

---
# C_2019270EN.01001701.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 3 May 2019 — De Ruiter vof v De Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-361/19)

(2019/C 270/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: De Ruiter vof

Defendant: De Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Question referred

Are Article 99(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy [and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008] and Article 73(4)(a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 (2) of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance valid, in so far as, in those provisions, the year of the finding of non-compliance is decisive for the determination of the year for which the cross-compliance reduction is calculated, in a situation where the year of the non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules is not the same as the year of the finding of non-compliance?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.

(2)  OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69.

---
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Rosenberg, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Rosenberg,*107 Ohio St.3d 1209, 2005-Ohio-6510.]

(No. 2005-0459

Submitted October 12, 2005

Decided December 28, 2005.)

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark J. Mahoney, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

Thomas Rein, for appellee.

{¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton and O’Connor, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 2} For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in *State v. Cummings,*107 Ohio St.3d 1206, 2005-Ohio-6506, 839 N.E.2d 27, I respectfully dissent.

O’Connor, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                               AHL SERVICES, INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE DATA)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED         SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                     JUNE 30,                  JUNE 30,
                                                ------------------         ----------------
                                                1999          1998         1999        1998
                                                ----          ----         ----        ----
<S>                                            <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>

 Income Applicable to Common Stock:
   Net income                                  $ 5,332      $ 2,567      $ 9,063      $ 4,391
                                               =======      =======      =======      =======


 Weighted Average Shares:
   Common shares                                17,388       13,610       16,934       13,607
   Common share equivalents applicable to
     stock options outstanding                     549          610          588          556
                                               -------      -------      -------      -------
   Weighted average common and common
     equivalent shares outstanding during
     the period                                 17,937       14,220       17,522       14,163
                                               =======      =======      =======      =======

 Per Share Amount:
   Net income:
              Basic                            $  0.31      $  0.19      $  0.54      $  0.32
                                               =======      =======      =======      =======
              Diluted                          $  0.30      $  0.18      $  0.52      $  0.31
                                               =======      =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>


                                       16
Order entered March 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01333-CV

IN RE BRUCE BISHOP, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-14298

ORDER

Before the Court En Banc

Before the Court is real party in interest’s March 8, 2019 motion for en banc 

reconsideration. We request that relator file a response to the motion for en banc reconsideration 

by April 9, 2019.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 51 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 

adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2012 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the 

Senate and an adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 on any day from Friday, June 29, 2012, through Monday, 

4 July 2, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this concur5 rent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 

6 stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, 

7 July 9, 2012, or such other time on that day as may be 

8 specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the mo9 tion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any re10 assembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resoluVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:33 Jul 02, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SC51.ATS SC51

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SCON 51 ATS 

1 tion, whichever occurs first; and that when the House ad2 journs on any legislative day from Friday, June 29, 2012, 

3 through Friday, July 6, 2012, on a motion offered pursu4 ant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or 

5 his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Mon6 day, July 9, 2012, or until time of any reassembly pursu7 ant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever 

8 occurs first. 

9 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the 

10 Speaker of the House, or their respective designees, acting 

11 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

12 Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify 

13 the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to re14 assemble at such place and time as they may designate 

15 if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
GOES HERE
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,002
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,151
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,098
<INVENTORY>                                     82,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,978
<PP&E>                                          80,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,632
<BONDS>                                         13,667<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          115,024<F2>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   343,411
<SALES>                                        250,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250,140
<CGS>                                          149,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   92,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (339)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,364
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,181
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,357
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,538
<EPS-BASIC>                                       6.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     6.36
<FN>
<F1>Bonds represents current and long-term portion of subordinated notes
<F2>Represents Guaranteed Preferrred Beneficial interests in the corporation's
    Junior Subordinated Debt
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### JOHNSON, Respondent, v. PRINCE LINE, Limited, Appellant.

(Supreme Court', Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Peter Johnson against the Prince Line, Limited.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed by default with costs. See 93 N. Y. Supp. 273.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Scott E. Chaplin, Appellant, v The People of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

[941 NYS2d 814]

*1279Rose, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hummel, J.), entered November 22, 2011 in Rensselaer County, which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

In June 2011, petitioner was indicted on three counts of murder in the second degree stemming from a November 1994 homicide. Following arraignment, petitioner submitted a bail application and, following a hearing, County Court (Ceresia, J.) denied the application. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding alleging that County Court abused its discretion. After a hearing, Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus and he now appeals.

We affirm. The scope of this Court’s review is limited to whether County Court abused its statutory discretion by arbitrarily denying petitioner’s bail application based on the record before it *(see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230, 232 [1979]; *People ex rel. Raucci v Pollard,*68 AD3d 1432, 1432-1433 [2009]). Here, County Court considered the statutory factors enumerated in CPL 510.30 (2) (a), including the seriousness of the crimes with which petitioner is charged, the likelihood of conviction, the potential lengthy sentence and his previous record with regard to court appearances, and there is support in the record for the conclusions reached by the court. Accordingly, we cannot say that County Court abused its “sole nonreviewable discretion” in denying bail *(People ex rel. Klein v Krueger,*25 NY2d 497, 502-503 [1969]; *accord People ex rel. Raucci v Pollard,*68 AD3d at 1433; *see People ex rel. Litman v Warden of Manhattan House of Detention,*23 AD3d 258, 258 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 708 [2006]).

Consequently, Supreme Court did not err in dismissing petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus.

Spain, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 USCSECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned 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 ofthe dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. 

By: /s/ Larry D. Hall 

Senior Vice President and 

Chief Financial Officer 

Date: March 7, 2016
#### Ben Howard SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph K. COFFY; Bob Atkinson; Linda G. Walters; Percy B. Harvin; L. Keith Josey, Jr.; Ronnie Stewart, all in their individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-1802.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2010.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2010.

Ben Howard Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Shaun C. Kent, Coffey, Chandler & Kent, PA, Manning, South Carolina; Kelly M. Jolley, McNair Law Firm, PA, Hilton Head, South Carolina; Andrew Linde-mann, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ben Howard Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Defendant Percy B. Harvin *745from Smith’s civil action. This court may-exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Smith seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         AMENDMENT No. 1 to Employment Agreement made as of the 1st day of
October, 1995, by and between CALLING CARD CO., INC., a New York corporation
(the "Company"), and ANDREW STOLLMAN (the "Executive").

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that the
Executive is deserving of an increase in his base salary to make such salary
commensurate with his skills, talents, efforts and productivity;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

         1. Section 4.1 of the Employment Agreement shall be amended in its
entirety to read as follows:

                  "In consideration for the services to be performed by the
         Executive during the Employment Period hereunder, the Company shall
         compensate the Executive with a base salary at the following rates
         during the Employment Period:

                  (a) With respect to the period from October 1, 1995 to
         November 30, 1995, the Executive shall be paid a base salary at the
         rate of $928.99 per month;

                  (b) With respect to the fiscal year ending November 30, 1996,
         and from December 1, 1996 through November 30, 1996, the Executive
         shall be paid a base salary at the rate of $175,000 per annum; and

                  (c) With respect to the fiscal year ending November 30, 1997,
         effective January 1, 1997 and for the remainder of such fiscal year,
         the Executive shall be paid a base salary at the rate of $250,000 per
         annum; and

                  (d) With respect to each fiscal year thereafter, the
         Executive's base salary shall be increased by ten percent (10%) over
         and above his base salary for the immediately preceding fiscal year.

         2. The above reflects all of the amendments to the Employment Agreement
and all other provisions of the Employment Agreement, currently in effect, shall
be remain unchanged and of full force and effect as of the date hereof.
<PAGE>   2
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of
the day and year first above written.




                                       CALLING CARD CO., INC.




                                       By:
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Jeffrey L. Schwartz
                                          Chairman and CEO



                                          ----------------------------------
                                          ANDREW STOLLMAN