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


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 CD&L, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Albert W. Van Ness, Jr., 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) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
        dates presented and the consolidated results of operations of the
        Company for the periods presented.

Dated: April 30, 2003


                                              /s/ Albert W. Van Ness, Jr.
                                              ---------------------------
                                              Albert W. Van Ness, Jr.
                                              Chief Executive Officer
EX 42 - Series A Common Stock Form of Certificate



		

			Exhibit 4.2

		


		

			 

		


		

			 

		




		
			
		

		
			﻿
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 51 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service 

of the Department of the Treasury relating to taxable medical devices. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2012 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the 

Treasury relating to taxable medical devices. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the In4 ternal Revenue Service of the Department of the Treasury 

5 relating to taxable medical devices (published at 77 Fed. 

6 Reg. 72924 (December 7, 2012)), and such rule shall have 

7 no force or effect. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------

















                                      13

<PAGE>

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                         ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2002-2
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-2


         The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

         (i)    A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during
         the preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Master
         Servicer under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

         (ii)   To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the
         Master Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement
         throughout such year.




/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                                Dated: March 27, 2003

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER



/s/ Mark Wong                                           Dated: March 27, 2003

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT




                                      14
# C_2019164EN.01005701.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/57

---

Action brought on 14 March 2019 — AQ v eu-LISA

(Case T-164/19)

(2019/C 164/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AQ (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of eu-LISA of 8 May 2018 which terminates the applicant’s employment contract at eu-LISA without notice together with, in so far as necessary, the decision of eu-LISA of 4 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of eu-LISA of 8 May 2018 which terminates the applicant’s employment contract at eu-LISA without notice together with, in so far as necessary, the decision of eu-LISA of 4 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant;

| — | 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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity and the violation of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity and the violation of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the breach of Articles 16 and 48 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the breach of Articles 16 and 48 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 31 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 31 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an abuse of power.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4

                            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 Communications & Power Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 27, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joel Littman, 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/ Joel Littman


Joel Littman
Chief Financial Officer
December 12, 2002
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  on Form  10-Q of  Synovics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended January 31,
2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ronald
Howard Lane, Principal Executive Officer, 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) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the
         Company for the periods presented.

Dated: March 22, 2007


By: /s/ Ronald Howard Lane
    ------------------------
    Ronald Howard Lane
    Chief Executive Officer



This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Synovics  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.  and will be retained by Synovics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.59



DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS



---



For 2006, the Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, approved the following compensation program for non-employee directors:



Annual Retainer:



| |  |  | All non-employee directors receive an annual retainer of $60,000
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------

| |  |  | The Audit Committee Chairman receives an additional annual retainer of $25,000
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  |  | Other directors who serve on the Audit Committee receive an additional annual retainer of $10,000
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  |  | Directors who serve on the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receive an additional annual retainer of $5,000
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  |  | Directors who serve on the Compensation Committee receive an additional annual retainer of $5,000
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stock Options:



18,000 shares of the Companys common stock, which will vest ratably over five years, with a grant date of March 1, 2006 and an exercise price of $50.84 per
share.



Pharmacy Benefits Program:



Each non-employee director may choose to participate in the pharmacy benefits program made
available to the Companys employees.



Director Deferred
Compensation Plan:



Pursuant to the plan, non-employee directors may
elect to accept stock units rather than cash for all or a portion of their annual retainer. As of the month in which accruals related to any deferred compensation are made, each director is credited with a number of stock units determined by
dividing the retainer amount deferred, plus a fifteen percent premium, by the average closing price of the Companys common stock over the first ten trading days of such month. Accumulated stock units are converted into shares of the
Companys common stock on a deferred basis upon the earlier to occur of a Change in Control, as defined in the plan, the cessation of the participants status as a non-employee director or four years after the compensation is
deferred.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 22 Engrossed Amendment House (EAH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 6, 2011.
    Resolved, That the resolution from the Senate (S.J. Res. 22) 
entitled ``Joint resolution to grant the consent of Congress to an 
amendment to the compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois 
providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development Agency may 
mature in not to exceed 40 years.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:

SECTION 1. CONSENT.

    (a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to the amendment 
of the powers conferred on the Bi-State Development Agency by Senate 
Bill 758, Laws of Missouri 2010 and Public Act 96-1520 (Senate Bill 
3342), Laws of Illinois 2010.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment to the powers conferred by the 
Acts consented to in subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1950.

    The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 568) shall 
apply to the amendment approved under this joint resolution to the same 
extent as if such amendment was conferred under the provisions of the 
compact consented to in such Act.

SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.

    The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution is 
expressly reserved.

SEC. 4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.

    The right is reserved to Congress to require the disclosure and 
furnishings of such information or data by the Bi-State Development 
Agency as is deemed appropriate by Congress.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 22

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust II (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred
Funding II, L.P. for the period ended June 25, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Haig J. Nargesian, Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: August 4, 2004
_____________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
# C_2019246EN.01003501.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/35

---

Action brought on 22 May 2019 — BT v European Commission

(Case T-315/19)

(2019/C 246/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BT (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should;

| — | annul the Commission decision of 20 July 2018 refusing the grant of a survivor’s pension to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision of 20 July 2018 refusing the grant of a survivor’s pension to the applicant;

| — | 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 two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of the requirement as to the duration of the marriage, fixed at five years by Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that, first, it discriminates arbitrarily between officials in service and retired officials. Secondly, the applicant takes the view that, although the minimum duration requirement of one year is appropriate in combating fraudulent marriages, a minimum duration of five years is itself arbitrary, inadequate and unfair. Thirdly, such a condition can unfairly exclude from the benefit of a survivor’s pension the spouse of a deceased official who is nevertheless bound by plans for their life together. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging unlawfulness of the requirement as to the duration of the marriage, fixed at five years by Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that, first, it discriminates arbitrarily between officials in service and retired officials. Secondly, the applicant takes the view that, although the minimum duration requirement of one year is appropriate in combating fraudulent marriages, a minimum duration of five years is itself arbitrary, inadequate and unfair. Thirdly, such a condition can unfairly exclude from the benefit of a survivor’s pension the spouse of a deceased official who is nevertheless bound by plans for their life together.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

---
DA 13-0861

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2014 MT 303N

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

LISA R. HUEY,

 Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DC-03-162

Honorable Robert L. Deschamps, III, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Lisa R. Huey (Self-Represented), Butte, Montana

For Appellee:

Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant

Attorney General, Helena, Montana

Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney, Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: October 29, 2014

 Decided: November 18, 2014

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

November 18 2014

Case Number: DA 13-0861
2

Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating 

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not 

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this 

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana 

Reports.

¶2 Lisa Huey appeals from the District Court’s order of December 4, 2014, denying 

her motion to reconsider the sentence imposed upon her after a probation violation. We 

affirm.

¶3 In January 2012 the District Court revoked Huey’s probation and sentenced her to 

a term of imprisonment pursuant to her original sentence. Huey contested the amount of 

credit she received for time served. The District Court denied Huey’s request for 

additional credit for time served in a hand-written order dated March 1, 2012. Huey filed 

a motion to reconsider that order and the District Court denied that motion in another 

handwritten order dated December 4, 2014 (sic, should be 2013). On appeal Huey 

contends that the order denying the motion to reconsider is unlawful because it was 

handwritten and illegible. Huey does not appeal from the underlying order of March 1, 

2014, denying her request for additional credit for time served. 

¶4 Huey has not presented any legal reason why the order denying her motion to 

reconsider was unlawful and the District Court’s handwriting is clearly legible. While 

Huey cites the Uniform District Court Rules and the Rules of the Montana Fourth 
3

Judicial District, she provides no authority under those rules to invalidate the order that is 

at issue in this case. Further, even if the order at issue were unlawful, the District Court’s 

prior order denying the requested relief is of record and Huey did not appeal from it.

¶5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of 

our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. The issues in 

this case are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly 

interpreted.

¶6 Affirmed.

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

We Concur:

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

/S/ JIM RICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Anthony DIGILIO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-10065.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 8, 2009.

Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*88Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, *TROTT,*and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

William Anthony Digilio appeals from the 25-month sentence and a special condition of supervised release imposed by the district court upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Digilio contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain the reasons for imposing a sentence above the range recommended under the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements. However, the record discloses that the district court determined that an above-range sentence was warranted in light of Digilio’s history and characteristics, and the need to afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and provide correctional treatment. We conclude that the district court sufficiently explained the sentence under the circumstances. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); *United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Digilio further contends that remand is required because it is impossible to determine whether, and to what extent, the district court may have relied upon impermissible factors in selecting the sentence. This contention is belied by the record. The district court explicitly acknowledged the limits upon consideration of the factors at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) in sentencing upon revocation of supervised release. *See United States v. Simtob,*485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007); *United States v. Miqbel,*444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, we reject Digilio’s challenge to a special condition of supervised release prohibiting him from entering gambling establishments. We conclude that, under the circumstances, the condition is reasonably related to the goals of deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation, and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. *See United States v. Stoterau,*524 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.