alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### Form 10-Q Table of Contents

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 Quarterly Report of SeaBright Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Joseph S. De Vita,
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §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.

Dated: May 10, 2007

| |  |  |                                                                                                                       
| |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  | /s/ Joseph S. De VitaJoseph S. De Vita
          Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Assistant Secretary

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

---
Kendrick Ledelle DOTSTRY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5529

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2018060EN.01000301.xml

| 16.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8633 — Lufthansa/Certain Air Berlin assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 60/05)

On 21 December 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8633. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8633. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1907

WADDELL BYNUM, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SECOND WARD HIGH SCHOOL MECKLENBURG COUNTY SCHOOL 

BOARD; STAFF OF SECOND WARD,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:19-cv-00316-FDW-DSC)

Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Waddell Bynum, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Waddell Bynum, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order and judgment dismissing 

his complaint because it was barred by the statute of limitations and Bynum did not raise 

any claims against the defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised 

in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bynum’s informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Bynum has forfeited appellate review 

of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating 

that “[t]he informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review 

is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Amendment To Employment Agreement (the "Amendment") is entered
into as of August 8, 2003, by and between Kent P. Ainsworth (the "Employee") and
URS Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), to amend the Employment
Agreement entered into between the parties as of September 8, 2000 (the
"Employment Agreement"), as follows (capitalized terms in this Amendment are
used as defined in the Employment Agreement unless otherwise required by the
context):

                  1. A new second sentence is added to Section 6(c) of the
     Employment Agreement to read in full as follows:

         "Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if at anytime during the
         period from August 27, 2003 through August 27, 2004, either (i) the
         Employee voluntarily resigns his employment for any reason or (ii) the
         Company terminates the Employee's employment for any reason, then the
         Employee shall be entitled to receive the Change in Control Payment and
         such Severance Benefits."

                  2. Except as so amended, the Employment Agreement remains in
     full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has executed this Amendment, in the case
of the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of the day and year first
above written.

                                     /s/ Kent P. Ainsworth
                                     ---------------------------------------
                                     KENT P. AINSWORTH

                                     URS CORPORATION,
                                     A Delaware corporation

                                     /s/ Mary E. Sullivan
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Mary E. Sullivan
                                     Title: Vice President, Human Resources

                                        1
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Clive Barwin, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Melt Inc. for the
      period ended March 31, 2008 (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 Melt Inc.                                                                   

Dated: May 15, 2008



| | /s/
      Clive Barwin                                         
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | Clive Barwin                                                   
| | President, CEO, Chief Financial Officer,
      Secretary and   
| | Director                                                       
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer
| | and Principal Accounting Officer)                              
| | Melt Inc.                                                      



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Melt Inc. and
will be retained by Melt Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,899,976
<SECURITIES>                                 1,285,551
<RECEIVABLES>                                  628,438
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,979,135
<PP&E>                                       1,518,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                 929,577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,929,422
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          704,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        7,591,538
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,551
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,929,422
<SALES>                                      3,758,408
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,758,408
<CGS>                                          669,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  669,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,064,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (810,810)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (25,394)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (785,416)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (785,416)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
James J. MAKSIMUK, Petitioner, v. CONNOR SPORT COURT INTERNATIONAL, LLC.

No. 19-493.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
Joseph FLOWERS, Petitioner v. F. FOULK, Warden

No. 19-5729

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 19-5213

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin* v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals* , 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 05/13/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       70,261
COMMITMENTS
     694   14,429    2,229   67,338   53,425   70,261   70,083        0      178

CHANGES FROM 05/06/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      4,085)
    -131      856       18    4,298    3,193    4,185    4,067     -100       18

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     1.0     20.5      3.2     95.8     76.0    100.0     99.7      0.0      0.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       34)
       2       10        6       15       20       22       31`

---

Updated May 16, 2014
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000810271
<NAME> SB Growth & Income Fund
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER>      003
   <NAME>Smith Barney Investment Series

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  Oct-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                       Oct-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>            1,215,777,189
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>           1,482,363,866
<RECEIVABLES>                       18,939,102
<ASSETS-OTHER>                     143,397,333
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,644,700,301
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>            32,346,918
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                      0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          147,782,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                180,129,268
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                              0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>         1,092,644,397
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>               53,470,447
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>               52,501,218
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>              (58,299)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                       0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>            104,616,673
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                     0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>           267,368,262
<NET-ASSETS>                     1,464,571,033
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                   18,878,917
<INTEREST-INCOME>                      591,872
<OTHER-INCOME>                               0
<EXPENSES-NET>                      15,576,007
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>              3,894,782
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>           106,851,708
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>          (33,445,162)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>               77,301,328
<EQUALIZATION>                               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>            3,743,838
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>           177,581,351
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                        0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>              2,182,584
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>         10,611,813
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                  9,398,458
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>             (46,121,807)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                (58,299)
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>          239,851,058
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                      0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                   0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                9,663,674
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                     15,576,007
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>             1,083,787,387
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                   21.360
<PER-SHARE-NII>                          0.080
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                  1.110
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                     0.000
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                3.520
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                     0.000
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     19.030
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                           0.85



</TABLE>
PROFESSIONAL HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

,

Appellant,

v.

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
ADMINISTRATION

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION TH EREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1831

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 2, 2014.

An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings

. Jessica E. Varn

, Administrative Law Judge

.

James M. Barclay, Tallahassee; Daniel Loren Le yton and Javier Talamo, of Kravitz Talamo Leyton, LLP, Miami , for Appellant.

Stuart Williams, General Counsel, and Tracy Cooper George, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED

.

LEWIS, C. J., WOLF and WETHERELL

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Lana Thomas, Defendant.

City Court of Rochester,

May 21, 1973.

*Jack B. Lazarus, District Attorney (Douglas E. Rowe*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Alfred P. Kremer*for defendant.

*7Wilmeb J. Patlow, J.

Defendant is charged with prostitution in violation of section 230.00 of the Penal Law, which reads as follows: “A person is guilty of prostitution when such person engages or agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee.”

The information lodged against defendant is signed by a police •officer and alleges that she offered to engage in sexual conduct with him in return for a fee.

Defendant now moves, pursuant to CPL 170.30 (subd. 1, par. [f]) to dismiss the information on the grounds that there are legal impediments which would prevent defendant’s conviction.

Defendant, citing *People*v. *Jackson*(69 Misc 2d 793) argues that the police officer’s testimony requires corroboration to sustain a conviction because the officer is merely a coconspirator when he seeks the service of a prostitute. Defendant further argues that the facts herein constitute illegal entrapment, requiring dismissal of the information.

The People respond by clearly distinguishing the *Jackson*case from the case at bar. In *Jackson,*the defendant was charged with *engaging*in sexual conduct — a consummated act where the accomplice had participated. Thus, the patron and the prostitute ‘ *‘*joined together in the commission of reciprocal offenses and each, therefore, is the accomplice of the other.” *(People*v. *Jackson, supra,*p. 797). Hence, the uncorroborated testimony of the patron was insufficient to convict the prostitute.

In the case at bar, defendant is charged not with *engaging*in sexual conduct for a fee, but with offering to engage in such conduct. The offer, standing by itself, is prohibited by law. It requires no reciprocity. Thus, the police officer can hardly be deemed an accomplice of the prostitute. Therefore, his testimony requires no corroboration.

The People further respond that entrapment is an affirmative defense available at trial, and not properly before the court as part of a pretrial motion. *(People*v. *Philipson,*59 Misc 2d 420.)

The court agrees with the People’s position on both points. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the information is therefore denied.
Exhibit 4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
  
 INDEPENDENT BANKS OF VIRGINIA, INC. 
  
 ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT 
  
 (a) The name of the corporation is: 
  
 Independent Banks of Virginia, Inc. 
  
 (b) This amendment adopted pursuant to Section 13.1-55 (f) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, is to change Article 4 of the Articles of
Incorporation to read as follows: 
  
 “4. The aggregate
number of shares which the corporation shall have the authority to issue and the par value per share are as follows: 
  

					
	 Class

	 	 Number of Shares

	 	 Par Value-Shares


	 Common Stock
	 	1,000,000	 	$5.00”

  
 (c) The Board of
Directors, on October 23, 1985, and November 27, 1985, found the amendment to be in the best interest of the corporation. The stockholders adopted the amendment on December 27, 1985, at a special meeting of stockholders called for that purpose.

  
 (d) All 265,709 of the issued and outstanding shares of the
corporation’s voting common stock were entitled to vote. 
  
 (e) 196,452 of the eligible shares were voted in favor of the amendment and 300 were voted against the amendment. 
  
 (f) The amendment increases the five hundred thousand (500,000) authorized shares of $5.00 par value common stock to one million (1,000,000) shares of
$5.00 par value common stock. 
  

 1 








 (g) On December 2, 1985, written notice accompanied by a copy of the proposed amendment was mailed,
postage prepaid, to each and every one of the stockholders at his address as it appears on the corporation’s stock transfer books. All notices were deposited in the U. S. mail on December 2, 1985. 
  
 (h) The amendment does not effect a restatement of the Articles of
Incorporation. 
  
 Signed in the City of Norfolk, Virginia, this
27th day of December, 1985. 
  

	
	 INDEPENDENT BANKS OF VIRGINIA, INC.

	
	 /s/    C. Phillips Kraemer

	

	C. Phillips Kraemer, President
	
	 /s/    Robert C. Stackhouse

	

	Robert C. Stackhouse, Secretary


  

 2
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/15/14                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      435,001
COMMITMENTS
 140,160  190,565  101,926  165,725  114,769  407,811  407,260   27,190   27,741

CHANGES FROM 07/08/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -22,196)
  -7,792  -28,214      651  -10,533   11,171  -17,674  -16,392   -4,522   -5,804

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    32.2     43.8     23.4     38.1     26.4     93.7     93.6      6.3      6.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      217)
      68       87       82       41       41      161      169
```

----

Updated July 18, 2014
Franklin PILLIER, Petitioner v. MASSACHUSETTS.

No. 19-6048

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.
IN RE Arnold KING, Petitioner

No. 19-5559

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.