alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(a)



In connection with the CNB Florida  Bancshares,  Inc. (the "Company")  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,  (the "Report"),  I, K.C.
Trowell,  Chairman of the Board,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



     1.        The 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 Report fairly presents,  in all
               material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
               operations of the Company.



                                            /s/  K.C. Trowell
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            K.C. Trowell
                                            Chairman of the Board, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's unaudited financial reports and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,111,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,313,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,616,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,513,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             122,962,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       391,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,547,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               122,962,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,765,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,313,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,792,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,548,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,548,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,548,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Anthony B. BROOKS, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 16-6216.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
# C_2010024EN.01001601.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-202/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/24/EC - Electronic communications - Respect for private life - Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 24/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Balta and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Janet L. Berg, Appellant, v Richard L. Narolis, Sr., Respondent.

[882 NYS2d 615]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Joan E. Shkane, J.), entered April 25, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 5-A. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is reinstated and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Oneida County, for further proceedings on the petition.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother and respondent father signed an agreement in November 2005 pursuant to which they were to have joint legal custody of their child, but the father was to have primary physical custody and was granted permission for the child to relocate with him to Florida. The agree*1189ment, which was incorporated into a New York order, further provided that physical custody would be transferred back to the mother upon her relocation to Florida. The mother never relocated to Florida, however, and the child has continued to reside with the father. In December 2007 the mother filed a petition in New York seeking custody of the parties’ child.

We conclude that Family Court erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the proceeding and in dismissing the mother’s petition upon determining that, although it had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the proceeding *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 76-a), New York was an inconvenient forum under Domestic Relations Law § 76-f. Section 76-f (2) provides that, “[b]efore determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state . . . *shall*allow the parties to submit information and *shall*consider all relevant factors,” including eight specified factors (emphasis added). The record establishes that the court properly allowed the parties to submit information, but we agree with the mother that the record fails to establish that the court considered all of the requisite statutory factors and that reversal therefore is required *(see Matter of Michael McC. v Manuela*A., 48 AD3d 91, 98 [2007], *lv dismissed*10 NY3d 836 [2008]; *Matter of Scala v Tefft,*42 AD3d 689, 692 [2007]; *Matter of Blerim M. v Racquel M.,*41 AD3d 306, 310 [2007]; *cf. Matter of Eisner v Eisner,*44 AD3d 1111, 1113 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 816 [2007]; *Clark v Clark,*21 AD3d 1326 [2005]).

Based on our determination, we need not address the mother’s remaining contention. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Fahey, Garni and Pine, JJ.
# C_2012032EN.01000801.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Administración General del Estado

(Case C-157/10) (1)

1

(Free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Prohibition of deducting tax due but not recovered in another Member State)

2012/C 32/12

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Articles 63 and 65 TFEU — Corporation tax — National legislation and convention on double taxation prohibiting the deduction of tax due but not recovered in other Member States for income obtained on their territory

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 67 of the EEC Treaty and Article 1 of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (article repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) do not preclude national rules of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the context of corporation tax and within the framework of provisions for the avoidance of double taxation, prohibit the deduction of amounts of tax due in other Member States of the European Union on income subject to corporation tax and obtained in their territory where those amounts, though due, are not paid by virtue of an exemption, a credit or any other tax benefit, in so far as those rules are not discriminatory as compared with the treatment applied to interest obtained in that Member State, it being for the national court to establish whether that is the case.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

1

---
SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, petitioner, v. ASD SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE, INC.

No. 17-803.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Robert W. BONNER, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-7733.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2009267EN.01006701.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/67

---

Action brought on 14 August 2009 — Audi and Volkswagen v OHIM (TDI)

(Case T-318/09)

2009/C 267/121

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany) and Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by P. Kather, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 May 2009 (Case R 226/2007-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 May 2009 (Case R 226/2007-1);

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TDI’ for goods in Class 12 (application No 3179058)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the mark applied for has the requisite acquired distinctiveness; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the mark applied for has the requisite acquired distinctiveness;

1

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character;

| — | Infringement of the first clause of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the defendant failed to take up the applicants’ offers of evidence; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first clause of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the defendant failed to take up the applicants’ offers of evidence;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.02



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Michael Shahbazian, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Niku Corporation;



2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Annual Report;



3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,
and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;



4.  The registrants other certifying officers
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



(b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)  disclosed in this annual report
any change in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal controls over financial reporting;



5.  The
registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(a)  all significant deficiencies in
the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and



(b)  any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



|                      |  |                                                       
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 14, 2004 |  | /s/    MICHAEL
SHAHBAZIAN                             
|                      |  | Michael Shahbazian                                    
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 24, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D19-2065

Lower Tribunal No. F04-9267

________________

Morin Cherfrere,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Veronica 

Diaz, Judge.

McLain Law, P.A., and Matthew R. McLain (Longwood), for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Hernandez v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1079, D1080 

(Fla. 3d DCA May 16, 2018) (“The trial court’s findings of fact on the statutory 

factors listed in [section 921.1402] are reviewed for the existence of 

competent, substantial evidence in the record.”); Bell v. State, 313 So. 3d 

1183, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“On appeal, any factual findings by the trial 

court which are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record 

must be affirmed, and the court’s ultimate sentencing decision is reviewed 

for abuse of discretion.” (citing Jackson v. State, 276 So. 3d 73, 76 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2019))).
Boaz PLEASANT-BEY, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 17-7708.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Western Division denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3819 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3819

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the continued 
  implementation of the Climate and Health program by the Centers for 
                    Disease Control and Prevention.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2019

 Ms. Underwood (for herself and Ms. Shalala) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the continued 
  implementation of the Climate and Health program by the Centers for 
                    Disease Control and Prevention.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Climate and Health Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLIMATE AND HEALTH PROGRAM.

    Part B of title III of the Public Health Service Act is amended by 
inserting after section 317T (42 U.S.C. 247b-22) the following new 
section:

``SEC. 317U. CLIMATE AND HEALTH PROGRAM.

    ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Director of 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall continue to 
implement the Climate and Health program carried out by the National 
Center for Environmental Health (or successor program) for the 
following purposes:
            ``(1) To translate climate change science to inform States, 
        local health departments, and communities.
            ``(2) To create decision support tools to build capacity to 
        prepare for climate change.
            ``(3) To serve as a credible leader in planning for the 
        public health impacts of climate change.
    ``(b) Written Notification to Congress.--In the case of the 
establishment of any successor program to the Climate and Health 
program referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary, acting through 
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall 
submit to Congress a written notification of any transfer or 
reprogramming of funds to establish such a successor program.
    ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
            ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
        to carry out the program referred to in subsection (a) 
        $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2020 and each fiscal year 
        thereafter.
            ``(2) Limitation.--None of the funds made available under 
        paragraph (1) may be transferred or reprogrammed by the 
        Secretary to carry out another program administered by the 
        Secretary.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16400]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 34584]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 00-068-2]

Cold Treatment for Fresh Fruits; Port of Corpus Christi, TX; 
Correction

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: We are correcting an error in the preamble portion of a 
proposed rule to add the maritime port of Corpus Christi, TX, to the 
list of ports that are designated as approved locations for cold 
treatment of imported fruit. The proposed rule was published in the 
Federal Register on June 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna L. West, Import Specialist, PPQ, 
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-
6799.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 1, 2001, we published in the Federal 
Register (66 FR 29735-29739, Docket No. 00-068-1) a proposed rule to 
add the maritime port of Corpus Christi, TX, to the list of ports that 
are designated as approved locations for cold treatment of imported 
fruit.
    In the preamble portion of that proposed rule, in the section 
titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, we provided an incorrect phone 
number. The correct phone number for the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT is (301) 734-6799. This document corrects 
that error.

Correction

    In FR Doc. 01-13758, published on June 1, 2001 (66 FR 29735-29739), 
make the following correction: On page 29735, in the second column, in 
the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, correct ``(301) 
734-5007'' to read ``(301) 734-6799''.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of June 2001.
Bobby R. Acord,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 01-16400 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
```