alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

           CERTIFICATE 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 NS8 Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ricardo Rosado,
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  respect, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the  Company.

     A  signed  original  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.



/s/  Ricardo  Rosado
--------------------
Chief  Financial  Officer
September 17, 2004


                                    E - 4
<PAGE>
# C_2019406EN.01002501.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — Port de Bruxelles and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission

(Case T-674/17) (1)

(State aid - Corporate tax exemption scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of its ports - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market - Concept of economic activity - Services of general economic interest - Non-economic activities - Severability - Selectivity - Article 93 TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU)

(2019/C 406/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Port de Bruxelles (Brussels, Belgium), Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde and E. Wauters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Noë, (acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux, P. Cottin, L. Van den Broeck and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/2115 of 27 July 2017 on aid scheme SA.38393 (2016/C, ex 2015/E) implemented by Belgium — Taxation of ports in Belgium (OJ 2017 L 332, p.1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Port de Bruxelles and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Port de Bruxelles and Région de Bruxelles-Capitale to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Fields, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s claim that the court erred in denying his requests for a missing witness charge. It is not incumbent upon the prosecution " 'to call at trial every witness to a crime or to make a complete and detailed accounting to the defense of all law enforcement investigatory work’ ” *(People v Buckler,*39 NY2d 895, 897). Where, as here, there was no showing that the uncalled witness would have given different testimony, there was no need for the People to call both detectives who witnessed the oral admission *(see, People v Buckler, supra; People v Porter,*110 AD2d 662; *People v Shippee,*87 AD2d 942). Moreover, defendant knew the identity of Detective Ruvio and chose not to call him. In addition, Officer Bevere testified as a prosecution witness and defendant did not cross-examine him on this issue. The sentence imposed is not harsh or excessive considering defendant’s extensive criminal history. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — burglary, second degree; criminal mischief, fourth degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-602

In Re: DENNIS ALLEN BREWER, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-91-342-A) Submitted: June 17, 1997 Decided: August 5, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Allen Brewer, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Dennis Allen Brewer filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to respond to his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) motion, his subsequent motion to supplement the record, a motion for a reduction in sentence, and a motion for production of documents. To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate avenues of relief and that his right to the relief sought is clear and indisputable. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court , 490 U.S. 296, 308-09 (1989). The district court has no record of any pleadings filed after Brewer's judgment of conviction and Brewer failed to produce evidence that he in fact filed any such pleadings. Accordingly, Brewer has failed to show he has a clearright to relief requested and, although we grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We have confidence that if Brewer now files his action in the district court, that court will take prompt action. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH Document 3-2 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05422-AKH Document 6 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05422-AKH Document 6 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
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 Annual Report of NS8 Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,  Anthony J. Alda,
Principal  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 result of operations of
          the  Company.

     A  signed  original  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.

/s/  Anthony  J.  Alda
----------------------
Principal  Executive  Officer
March  31,  2005


                                      E-83
<PAGE>
December 28, 2005

Via E-Mail and US Mail

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21* Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Rule Certification. NYMEX Submission 05.225 — Notification of
Amendment to COMEX Division Rule 104.89.

Dear Ms. Jean Webb:

The New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (“NYMEX” or the “Exchange”) hereby notifies
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) of an amendment to COMEX Division
Rule 104.89, Settlement Price Committee.

Effective Tuesday, January 3, 2006, Staff will be integrated into the Settlement
Committee for Gold Options to serve as a voting member with veto authority over the daily
settlement prices. The Commission was previously notified of the procedure to add Staff to the
COMEX Settlement Committees in NYMEX Submission 04.142 dated October 25, 2004.
Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6, the
Exchange hereby certifies that the new amendments comply with the Act, including regulations
under the Act.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please feel free to contact me at
(212) 299-2940.

Very truly yours,

Nancy M. Minett
Vice President
Compliance Department

Attachments
ce: Thomas LaSala
Brian Regan


(Additions are in bold/underlined; deletions are bold/strikethrough.)

COMEX Rule 4.89, Settlement Price Committee

(A) The Settlement Price Committee, which shall be a Regular Committee, shall consist of such
members and permittees as the Chairman may appoint with the consent of the Board.
Additionally, one (1) Exchange employee will be a voting member of the Committee in the
Silver and Gold Options Contracts, and High Grade Copper Futures. The Exchange employee
shall have final authority in all instances to veto and override price determinations made by the
Committee. The Committee shall be divided into sub-committees for each futures and options
contract traded. To the extent possible, each sub-committee shall consist of at least six (6)
Members, at least one of whom shall be a Floor Broker, one of whom shall be a Floor Trader,
and one of whom shall represent trade interests (either personal, of his employer, or of a
substantial customer base).

(B) At the conclusion of the RTH trading session on the Exchange Floor each day, settlement
prices shall be determined for every contract listed.

(C) The Settlement Price Committee, or any subcommittee thereof, shall have the authority to
request from any member representing that certain market information should be considered in
the determination of a settlement price, such documentation as it deems appropriate including,
but not limited to, trading cards and order tickets.
Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer


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 SRKP 16, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard A. RappaportPrincipal Executive OfficerMay 11, 2011
Exhibit 10.21
 
 Agreement Company  Executive
 Plan  Restricted Stock
   Definitions
 Restrictions
 Vesting and Delivery Vesting provided
  (i)
    
    If such termination of employment is on or after December 31, 2010 but
prior to December 31, 2011, the Restrictions with respect to one-third of the
Restricted Stock shall lapse.




---



##### 



(ii)
    
    If such termination of employment is on or after December 31, 2011 but
prior to December 31, 2012, the Restrictions with respect to two-thirds of the
Restricted Stock shall lapse.
 Delivery of Shares
 Withholding, Section 83(b) Election, Consents and
Legends Withholding
 Section 83(b) Election
 Consents
 2




---



##### 



Legends
 Registration
 Voting Rights; Dividend Equivalents
 Non-Transferability of Restricted Stock
 Rights of the Executive
 Relation to Plan
 3




---



##### 



Notices
  
  
   Waiver of Breach
 Executive s Undertaking
 Compliance with Law
 4




---



##### 



Amendment
 Professional Advice
 Governing Law
 Counterparts
 Entire Agreement
 Severability
 5




---



##### 



SYMETRA FINANCIAL
CORPORATION,byRandall H. Talbot, President & CEOEXECUTIVE
No. 542.

#### Atlantic Trust and Deposit Company, Petitioner, *v.*The Town of Laurinburg, N. C.

October 19, 1908.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to,the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied. *Mr. Floyd Hughes*for petitioner^ *Mr. James E. Shepherd*and *Mr. Maxcy L. John*for respondent.
# C_2019112EN.01004101.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2019 — Serendipity and Others v EUIPO — CKL Holdings (CHIARA FERRAGNI)

(Case T-647/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark CHIARA FERRAGNI - Earlier Benelux word mark Chiara - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2019/C 112/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Serendipity Srl (Milan, Italy), Giuseppe Morgese (Barletta, Italy) and Pasquale Morgese (Barletta) (represented by: C. Volpi, L. Aliotta and F. Garbagnati Lo Iacono, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CKL Holdings NV (Bussum, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 July 2017 (Case R 2444/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, CKL Holdings and, on the other hand, Serendipity and Messrs Morgese.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 July 2017 (Case R 2444/2016-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 17 July 2017 (Case R 2444/2016-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Serendipity Srl, Mr Giuseppe Morgese and Mr Pasquale Morgese. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Serendipity Srl, Mr Giuseppe Morgese and Mr Pasquale Morgese.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 20.11.2017.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<S>                                              <C>                <C>
Net loss                                         $ (3,949,895)      $(1,042,912)
                                                 -------------      ------------

Deemed dividend associated with beneficial
 conversion feature of preferred stock             (5,584,555)            -
                                                 -------------      ------------

    Net loss attributed to common stockholders   $ (9,534,450)      $(1,042,912)
                                                 -------------      ------------

Basic and diluted loss per share                 $      (0.28)      $     (0.08)

Deemed dividend associated with beneficial
 conversion feature of preferred stock                  (0.39)             -
                                                 -------------      ------------

Basic and diluted loss per common share          $      (0.67)      $     (0.08)
                                                 -------------      ------------

Basic and diluted weighted average number
 of common shares outstanding                       14,278,129        12,917,693
                                                 -------------      ------------
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------- x

MARCO BORGRA, et al., 07 Civ. 5807 (TPG)

Plaintiffs,

- against - . NOTICE OF APPEAL

THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA,

Defendant.

------------------------------------------------ x

Notice is hereby given that the Republic of Argentina, defendant in the above

named case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from

the final judgment entered in this action on tile 8th day of April, 2008.

Dated: New York, New York

May 1, 2008

& ~~~CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP

J a ' I. Blackman "bckmancghcm

Carmine D. Boccuzzi (cboccuzzi~cgsh. corn)

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006

(212) 225-2000

Attorneys for the Republic of Argentina

TO: Joel A. Chernov, Esq.

Dreier LLP

499 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 14 Filed 05/06/2008 Page 1 of 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-------------------------------------------------X 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : NOTICE OF MOTION 

 -against- : Docket 07 Cr. 566(GBD) 

DAVID WILKINS, et al., : 

 

-------------------------------------------------X 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant DAVID WILKINS, and other co-defendants 

who join this motion, upon the attached Memorandum of Law and Exhibits, moves this 

Court by his attorney, TONI MESSINA, before the Honorable George Daniels at the 

United States Courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, for an order 

granting the following relief: 

1. Suppressing electronic surveillance evidence pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of 

the United States Constitution and 18 U.S.C. 2515 and 2518. 

2. Granting a hearing to determine the audibility of tapes and the accuracy of line 

sheets; 

3. Directing the government to transcribe the intercepted communications and 

categorize them in specified manners pursuant to the Due Process Clause and the 

Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; 

4. Directing the Government to disclose various discovery pursuant to Fed. Rule 

Crim. Proc. 16, thirty days before trial, i.e., a list of exhibits expected to be offered 

during its direct case; a list of anticipated witnesses; a list of unindicted 

coconspirators; a summary of expert testimony; and notice of any uncharged 

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD Document 43 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

crimes or prior bad acts which it may seek to introduce pursuant to Fed. Rule Evid. 

404(b); 

5. Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 

U.S. 150 (1972) and their progeny, directing the Government to disclose as soon as 

it becomes available any material that is either exculpatory useful for purposes of 

cross-examination, or helpful in discovering other material information; 

6. Ruling in limine that statements contained in the eavesdropping applications, 

progress reports and line sheets are admissible against the Government pursuant to 

Fed. R. Evid. 801; 

7. Granting David Wilkins permission to join all motions on behalf of all codefendants to the extent such motions are relevant and applicable herein, and are 

not inconsistent with the relief sought herein; and 

8. Granting such other further and different relief as this Court may deem just, 

equitable and proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 

 April 11, 2008 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 __________________________ 

 Toni Messina, Esq. 

 100 Lafayette Street, Suite 502 

 New York, NY 10013 

 646-207-4705 

 

TO: Clerk of the Court 

 United States District Court 

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD Document 43 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

 Southern District of New York 

 500 Pearl Street 

 NY, NY 10007 

 Hon. George B. Daniels 

 United States District Court 

 Southern District of New York 

 500 Pearl Street 

 NY, NY 10007 

 Avi Weitzman, AUSA 

 U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District 

 One St. Andrew’s Plaza 

 NY, NY 10007 

 

Case 1:07-cr-00566-GBD Document 43 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 3 of 3
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered

submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/10/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

 

STEVEN E. MOORE, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

vs. ) No. 95-1444

) (D.C. No. 95-S-2421)

ROY ROMER, Governor, State of Colorado; ) (D. Colo.)

in his official and individual capacity; )

WILLIAM RITTER, State District Attorney’s )

Office, in his official and individual capacity; )

DAVID F. VELA, State Public Defenders )

Office, in his official and individual capacity; )

STATE CLERK OF COURT, name unknown, )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

 

Plaintiff Steven E. Moore filed a combined 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action

and 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition and alleged Defendants violated his Fifth,
2

Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by refusing to rule on his state habeas petition. 

The district court concluded Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Defendants deprived him

of a right secured by the United States Constitution, Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398

U.S. 144, 150 (1970), and dismissed the § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d). The court found that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his state remedies, and that

his state habeas petition was pending, and therefore dismissed Plaintiff’s § 2254 petition. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus . . . shall not be

granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the

courts of the State.”). 

On appeal, Plaintiff maintains the district court erred by dismissing his § 1983

action and his § 2254 petition. We have reviewed Plaintiff’s brief and the entire record

before us. Based upon our review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm

for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s order.

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge