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 on From 10-Q of Gulfstream International Group, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David F. Hackett, Chief Executive 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.

|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ David F. Hackett   
|                       
|David F. Hackett       
|Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 14, 2008

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 13.1

                            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 Quebecor Media Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Serge Gouin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sections 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.


Date: March 30, 2004


                                                    /s/ Serge Gouin
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                        Serge Gouin
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
ex10_1.htm









EXHIBIT 10.1


 


Big Lots, Inc. Non-Employee Director


Compensation Package and Share Ownership Requirements


May 27, 2010


 


Compensation Package








	
Annual Retainer

	 	$	45,000	 
	  	 	 	 	 
	
Annual Committee Chair Retainer – Audit Committee

	 	$	15,000	 
	  	 	 	 	 
	
Annual Committee Chair Retainer – Compensation Committee and Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee

	 	$	10,000	 
	  	 	 	 	 
	
Board Meeting Fee

	 	$	1,500	 
	  	 	 	 	 
	
Committee Meeting Fee

	 	$	1,250	 
	  	 	 	 	 
	
Telephonic Meeting Fee – All Types

	 	$	500	 
	  	 	 	 	 
	
Annual Charitable Donation to Organization Nominated by Director

	 	$	10,000	 
	  	 	 	 	 
	
Grant Date Fair Value of Big Lots, Inc. Common Shares Underlying Annual Grant of Restricted Stock Award1

	 	$	95,000	 





 


Share Ownership Requirements







Under the new minimum share ownership requirements applicable to all non-employee directors and senior executives, each director must, at a minimum, own common shares having an aggregate value equal to four times (4x) his or her annual Board retainer (as is in effect at the time compliance with the requirements is evaluated).  Each existing director will be required to meet the requirements on the date of the 2013 annual meeting of shareholders and at subsequent annual meetings.  A newly elected director will be required to meet the requirements on the date of the first annual meeting following the fifth anniversary of his or her election.  Shares counted toward these requirements include common shares held directly or through a broker, unvested restricted stock, and vested but unexercised in-the-money stock options2.


 


_______________________




	 	
1

	
Equity awards are granted pursuant to the Big Lots 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan.











	
  

	
2

	
For vested but unexercised in-the-money stock options, only the difference in value between the then-current fair market value of the common shares and the exercise price will be counted toward the share ownership requirements.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Matthew Harder, Appellant.

Levine, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Turner, Jr., J.), rendered January 15, 1988, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crimes of burglary in the second degree (two counts), arson in the third degree, arson in the fourth degree and petit larceny (two counts).

*977When this appeal was originally before this court, it was concluded that County Court erred in failing to conduct an in camera inspection of the Family Court records of Peter A.,* a witness who testified for the prosecution, to determine whether such records contained evidence "material to the defense” (146 AD2d 286, 290). Peter A., a juvenile, had been the subject of a Family Court proceeding arising out of his participation in the crimes for which defendant was indicted. Apart from that error, we found no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we withheld decision and remitted to County Court to conduct an inspection of the Family Court records of that witness and to make a determination of whether anything contained therein was material, i.e., having a reasonable probability of changing the outcome of defendant’s trial *(see, Pennsylvania v Ritchie,*480 US 39, 57-58).

County Court has since made the required inspection of Peter A.’s Family Court records and rendered a decision finding nothing in the records which was inconsistent with or materially varied from Peter A.’s testimony. Further, the court found that no information was contained in the record which, if presented at the trial, would have changed the result. Having examined the same records, we agree with County Court’s findings, as well as its conclusion that the Family Court records of Peter A. were not material to the defense. Accordingly, any error in denying disclosure before or during the trial does not mandate reversal, and defendant’s conviction should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

*

Fictitious Name.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 National Science Foundation
 In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings of the Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental and Integrative Activities (#1193):
                    ( print page 27703) Date/time
PlaceJune 4, 2001; 8 a.m.-5 p.m
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.June 11-12, 2001; 8 a.m.-5 p.m
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.June 14-15, 2001; 8 a.m.-5 p.m
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.June 21-22, 2001; 8 a.m.-5 p.m
National Science Foundation, 4201, Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
 *Type of Meetings:*
                         Closed. *Contact Person:*
                         Gary Strong, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1160, Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 292-8980. *Purpose of Meetings:*
                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support. *Agenda:*
                         To review and evaluate Information Technology Research proposals as part of the selection process for awards. *Reason for Closing:*
                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. Dated: May 15, 2001. Susanne Bolton, Committee Management Officer.


[FR Doc. 01-12587  Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

David Salinas, Appellant

No. 06-18-00183-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 450th District Court of 

Travis County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. D-1-DC17-900141). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by replacing 

“STATE JAIL DIVISION, TDCJ” with “TRAVIS COUNTY JAIL” in the section titled 

“Punishment and Place of Confinement,” and under the section titled “Punishment Options,” we 

delete the “X” beside the paragraph titled “Confinement in State Jail or Institutional Division”

and place an “X” beside the paragraph titled “County Jail—Confinement/Confinement in Lieu of 

Payment.” As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, David Salinas, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 1, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 10(c)  




CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 



We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 17 to the Merrill Lynch Principal
Protected Trust’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A of our report dated February 25,
2005, except as to the effects of reclassifications of 2004, 2003, and 2002 balances for
reportable segments as reflected in Notes 9 and 19 for which the date is July 11, 2005,
relating to the financial statements of Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America
Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting and the effectiveness of Bank of America Corporation internal control
over financial reporting, which appears in Bank of America Corporation’s Current Report
on Form 8-K dated July 12, 2005. 






/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 




Charlotte, North Carolina 
December
22, 2005
# C_2017338EN.01001502.xml

| 9.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/15

---

Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Yellow Window v EIGE

(Case T-439/17)

(2017/C 338/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yellow Window (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 assessing not successful the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and subsequent decisions to assess the bid of another tenderer successful and to award the contract to it; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision of 8 May 2017 assessing not successful the applicant’s tender in procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 ‘Female Genital Mutilation: Estimating Girls at Risk’ and subsequent decisions to assess the bid of another tenderer successful and to award the contract to it;

| — | order the defendant to pay damages suffered by the applicant as well as an interest of 8 % or in the alternative to award a compensation as well as a compensation of 8 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay damages suffered by the applicant as well as an interest of 8 % or in the alternative to award a compensation as well as a compensation of 8 %;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, of the principle of transparency, of the principle to act with a certain care, of the duty to respect confidentiality as well as alleging manifest error of appraisal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment, of the principle of transparency, of the principle to act with a certain care, of the duty to respect confidentiality as well as alleging manifest error of appraisal.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the grounds, infringement of the principle of proportionality while assessing the applicant's tender. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging inconsistency in the grounds, infringement of the principle of proportionality while assessing the applicant's tender.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a good administration. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a good administration.

---
# C_2017369EN.01003601.xml

| 30.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/36

---

Action brought on 6 September 2017 — Grupo Bimbo/EUIPO — DF World of Spices (TAKIS FUEGO)

(Case T-608/17)

(2017/C 369/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (México, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, abogado)

Applicant(s):

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TAKIS FUEGO’ — Application for registration No 11 841 087

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2017 in Case R 2300/2016-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision;

| — | order the intervener to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the intervener to bear the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2019065EN.01001802.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 December 2018 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-51/18) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1) - Administrative practice of imposing VAT on the royalty payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right))

(2019/C 65/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Gossement and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: G. Hesse, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by providing that the royalty payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right is subject to value added tax, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by providing that the royalty payable to an author of an original work of art on the basis of the resale right is subject to value added tax, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Stream Global Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, R. Scott Murray, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Interim 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.



|                      |  |                                                                                                                                        
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  | /s/ R. Scott Murray                                                                                                                    
|                      |  | R. Scott Murray                                                                                                                        
|                      |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Interim ChiefFinancial Officer (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
# C_2020027EN.01000301.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — CeDe Group AB v KAN sp. z o.o., in liquidation

(Case C-198/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 6 - Insolvency proceedings - Applicable law - European order for payment procedure - Failure to pay a contractual claim before bankruptcy - Exception of set-off based on a contractual claim arising prior to bankruptcy)

(2020/C 27/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CeDe Group AB

Defendant: KAN sp. z o.o., in liquidation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 788/2008 of 24 July 2008, must be interpreted as not applying to an action brought by the liquidator of an insolvent company established in one Member State for the payment of goods delivered under a contract concluded before the insolvency proceedings were opened in respect of that company, against the other contracting company, which is established in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---
# C_2018032EN.01004601.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/46

---

Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Mouldpro v EUIPO — Wenz Kunststoff (MOULDPRO)

(Case T-796/17)

(2018/C 032/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mouldpro ApS (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: W Rebernik, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG (Lüdenscheid, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MOULDPRO’ — EU trade mark No 10 022 317

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2017 in Case R 2153/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Unlawful registration by an agent or representative, CTMR article 51(1)(b), in conjunction with article 8(3); |
| --- | --- |

—

Unlawful registration by an agent or representative, CTMR article 51(1)(b), in conjunction with article 8(3);

| — | Earlier non registered trademark rights used in the course of trade CTMR article 53(1)(c), in conjunction with article 8(4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Earlier non registered trademark rights used in the course of trade CTMR article 53(1)(c), in conjunction with article 8(4);

| — | The EUTM was applied in bad faith by the proprietor CMTR article 52(1)(b). |
| --- | --- |

—

The EUTM was applied in bad faith by the proprietor CMTR article 52(1)(b).

---