alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
vnue_ex107.htm

  EXHIBIT 10.6
  
  
  
  
 	 
	1
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	2
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	3
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	4
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	5
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	6
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	7
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	8
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	9
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	10
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	11
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	12
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	13
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	14
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	15
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	16
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	17
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	18
# C_2021269EN.01000401.xml

| 7.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/4

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 269/04)

| Member State | Spain |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Melilla – Almeria/Granada/Sevilla |
| Period of validity of the contract | From 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 2 months following the date of publication of this notice |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained | Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda |
| Urbana |
| Dirección General de Aviación Civil |
| Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo |
| Paseo de la Castellana 67 |
| 28071 Madrid |
| ESPAÑA |

Member State

Spain

Route concerned

Melilla – Almeria/Granada/Sevilla

Period of validity of the contract

From 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022

Deadline for submission of tenders

2 months following the date of publication of this notice

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligations can be obtained

Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda

Urbana

Dirección General de Aviación Civil

Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo

Paseo de la Castellana 67

28071 Madrid

ESPAÑA

Email: osp.dgac@mitma.es

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20660 Summary Calendar

__________________
GLENN ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-679

- - - - - - - - - - April 11, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Glenn Franklin Anderson appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus on grounds of res judicata . We have reviewed the record and the briefs, and AFFIRM the judgment for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. Anderson v. Secretary of the Air Force , No. CA-H-95-679 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 10, 1995).No. 95-20660 -2- In a prior appeal to this court, this court ordered Anderson to pay $500 in sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38 for the filing of a frivolous action against the same party and involving the same cause of action. Anderson is BARRED from filing any pleadings or documents of any kind, either in the district courts of this circuit or in this court, without advance written permission of a judge of the forum court. Any attempt by Anderson to file frivolous pleadings in the future will result in further sanctions. All of Anderson's motions and filings pertaining to this case are DENIED as moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David J. Krissick, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered April 26, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the photographic array viewed by the witness was unduly suggestive is without merit. It is well settled that "great weight must be accorded the determination of the hearing court with its particular advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses *(People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761), and that determination that the identification should not be disturbed where it is supported by the record” *(People v Gee,*104 AD2d 561). In the instant case the hearing court’s determination procedure was not unduly suggestive was clearly supported by the record.

Further, a court’s identification charge is sufficient if, after hearing the instruction, the jury "would gather from its language the correct rules which should be applied in arriving *416at its decision” *(People v Gardner,*59 AD2d 913). A review of the charge in the case at bar reveals that instructions sufficient to assist the jury in an accurate evaluation of the identification evidence were given. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
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 Timebeat.com Enterprises Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alexander Vileshin, 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/Alexander Vileshin______ Alexander Vileshin,Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Torres, Appellant.

Submitted February 5, 2007;

decided February 13, 2007

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.

Judge Jones taking no part.
EXHIBIT 32.2











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of TransAct Technologies Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven A. DeMartino, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.








Date:  March 18, 2011








/s/ Steven A. DeMartinoSteven A. DeMartino

Chief Financial Officer
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN B . R

AM IR EZ, a

ka Johnny R

hondo, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 12-56896

D.C . No. 8:12-c v-00986-JVS-R NB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** B e fore : LEAVY, C ALLAHAN, a nd M . SM ITH, C i rc uit Judge s. John B . R am ire z , ak a

Johnny R hondo, a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his pe tition to qua sh a n Inte rna l R e ve n

ue Se rvic e (IR S) sum m ons issue d to a third-pa

rty fina nc ia l institution. W

e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for c le ar e rror, Unite d State s v . Ric he y , 632 F.3d 

# F IL ED MAY19 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).559, 563 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d R am ire z ’ s pe tition to qua sh be c a use R am i re zfa i le d to re but the IR S’ s showing tha t the sum m ons wa s issue d in good fa ith. Se e id. at 564 (a

taxpa y e r ha s a he avy

burde n to show a

n a buse of proc e ss or la c k of good fa ith onc e the IR S m ake s a prim a fa c ie showing tha

t a sum m ons wa s issue d for a

le gitim at e purpose ); se e also Fortne y v . Unite d State s , 59 F.3d 117, 121 (9th C i r. 1995) (a t a xpa y e r is only

e ntitle d to a

n e vide n tia ry he aring if he pre s e nts e vide nc e of a

la c k of good fa ith; le g a l c o nc l usions, m e m oranda of la w, and a lle gations a

re insuffic ie n t ). W e re je c t R am ire z ’ s c o nte ntions c onc e rning the Fourth Am e n dm e nt, proba b le c a use , and le a

ve to a m e nd his pe tition. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e n ts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). R am ire z ’ s m otions a

nd re que sts for judic ia l notic e , se t forth in his ope ning and re ply brie fs, a re de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 5 6 8 9 6 2
#### Chapman, Appellant, v. Forbes, Respondent.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
----

|   | 1. | The      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));      and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |    /s/  Daniel      R. Baty |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Daniel      R. Baty                                  |
|   | Co-Chief      Executive Officer                      |
|   | May      09, 2008                                    |

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132540(90)(92) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, BERO MOTORS, INC., Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132540 

 COA: 257675 

Delta CC: 98-014256-CK 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 1, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. The motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. 

MARKMAN, J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant 

leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in Justice Corrigan’s dissenting statement in this 

case, 480 Mich 1053 (2008). 

d0421 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9470]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

45 CFR Part 60

RIN 0906-AA41


National Practitioner Data Bank for Adverse Information on 
Physicians and Other Health Care Practitioners: Medical Malpractice 
Payments Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, DHHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; status.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is 
announcing its intention to issue a second Notice of proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) on National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) Medical 
Malpractice payments Reporting Requirements following a period of data 
gathering and evaluation. This will involve a new 60-day public comment 
period for the revised proposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas C. Croft, 301-443-2300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed rules regarding amending the 
medical malpractice payment reporting requirements for the NPDB were 
published on December 24, 1998 (63 FR 71255). More than 120 comments on 
the proposed rule were received. Given the large number of thoughtful 
comments and the high level of concern that was voiced about the 
potential impact of the proposal as published, HRSA believes it is 
imperative to gather additional data and conduct further analyses 
before proceeding. A new NPRM then will be published for public 
comment, with a goal of publishing the revised proposal by the end of 
2000. The decision to publish another NPRM with its associated public 
comment period means that new final regulations likely will be 
implemented in 2001.

    Authority: Secs. 401-432 of the Health Care Quality Improvement 
Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3784-3794, as amended by sec. 
402 of Pub. L. 100-177, 101 Stat. 1007-1008 (42 U.S.C. 11101-11152).

    Dated: October 19, 1999.
Claude Earl Fox,
Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration.
    Approved: December 3, 1999.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9470 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-M
# C_2021018EN.01004201.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/42

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10060 — Francisco Partners/Marlin Equity Partners/Conan Holdco)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 18/12)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Francisco Partners (USA); |
| --- | --- |

—

Francisco Partners (USA);

| — | Marlin Equity Partners (USA). |
| --- | --- |

—

Marlin Equity Partners (USA).

Francisco Partners and Marlin Equity Partners acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Conan Holdco AS (the ‘JV Company’, Norway). The JV Company will combine the activities of Consignor, a Norwegian company currently under sole control of Francisco Partners, and Unifaun, a Swedish company currently under sole control of Marlin Equity Partners.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

| — | for Francisco Partners: global private equity firm focused on investing in technology and technology enabled businesses; |
| --- | --- |

—

for Francisco Partners: global private equity firm focused on investing in technology and technology enabled businesses;

| — | for Marlin Equity Partners: global investment firm with interests in a portfolio of businesses, including software and technology; |
| --- | --- |

—

for Marlin Equity Partners: global investment firm with interests in a portfolio of businesses, including software and technology;

| — | for the JV Company: provision of Transportation Administration Systems (‘TAS’) services in various EEA countries, including Sweden, Finland and Norway. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the JV Company: provision of Transportation Administration Systems (‘TAS’) services in various EEA countries, including Sweden, Finland and Norway.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10060 — Francisco Partners/Marlin Equity Partners/Conan Holdco

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

In re Guardianship of THOMAS C. BOOKER, WARD. 

LESLIE FERDERIGOS,

Appellant,

v.

SUSAN WHITNEY, as temporary guardian of

Thomas C. Booker, an incapacitated person,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-424

December 27, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Lindsay Alvarez, 

Judge.

Leslie Ferderigos, pro se.

Gerald L. Hemness, Jr. of Gerald L. Hemness, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0129 IN THE MATTER OF: T.R.S., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 25, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 20 2021

09/20/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0129
**EXHIBIT 12.2****Certifications**I, Terrence Norman Fern, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Petsec Energy Ltd; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and15d-15e) for the Company and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting;Date: December 15, 2006        /s/ Terrence Norman Fern   Terrence Norman Fern   Chief Executive Officer