alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SuperiorEssex Inc. (the “*Company*”)for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the “*Periodic Report*”), I, Stephen M. Carter, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that thePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information containedin the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 9, 2007 | /s/ STEPHEN M. CARTER                      |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                   | Stephen M. Carter*Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-3699

___________

Lance Addison; Steven R. Schuyler; *

Patricia Fitzharris, *

*

Appellees, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Everest Connections Corporation; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Everest Global Technologies, LLC; *

Utilicorp United, Inc., *

*

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: June 13, 2002

Filed: June 20, 2002

___________

Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

UtiliCorp United, Inc. entered into a limited liability company (LLC)

agreement with GLA New Ventures to form Everest Global Technologies, LLC, a

holding company for corporations engaged in cable, telephone, and internet services.

Later, UtiliCorp and GLA created Everest Connections Corporation, a subsidiary of

Everest Global, to build, operate, and license the proposed telecommunications

business. Three former employees of Everest Global and Everest Connections sued
*

The Honorable Paul Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

-2-

them seeking money damages for breach of contract and tortious interference with

contract arising out of their employment. The former employees also sought

declaratory relief on a noncompetition agreement. The business entities moved to

dismiss or to compel arbitration based on a clause in the LLC agreement requiring

disputes arising out of or related to the agreement to be settled by arbitration.

Because the former employees were not parties to the LLC agreement, the district

court*

 denied the motion. 

Everest Connections, Everest Global, and UtiliCorp appeal asserting the former

employees should be required to arbitrate their claims and any claims not submitted

to arbitration should be stayed pending arbitration. Having carefully reviewed the

record, we disagree. The former employees are not parties to the LLC agreement and

the claims they assert in this case do not arise under that agreement. The former

employees did sign letter agreements, employment agreements, noncompetition

agreements, and stock vesting agreements with Everest Connections and Everest

Global, but these agreements contain no arbitration clause, and state the parties will

submit disputes to federal or state courts. The vesting agreements do provide that

certain terms of the LLC agreement applicable to “members” govern the parties’

rights, but the arbitration clause of the LLC agreement does not govern “members”

as the agreement defines those terms. Further, the vesting agreements make no

reference to the LLC agreement’s arbitration clause, and the former employees were

not given a copy of the LLC agreement before signing the vesting agreements. 

We thus affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Scott A. BOYLER, Petitioner v. CITY OF LACKAWANNA, NEW YORK, et al.

No. 18-1555

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1300 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1300

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2013

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to reauthorize the volunteer 
    programs and community partnerships for the benefit of national 
               wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 
              VOLUNTEER, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP, AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    Section 7(g) of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 
742f(g)) is amended by striking ``2011 through 2014'' and inserting 
``2015 through 2017''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C_2022432EN.01002301.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)

(Joined Cases T-367/21 and T-432/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Applications for EU figurative marks READY 4YOU - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 432/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Robakowo, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and M. Chylińska, Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 April 2021 (Case R 2273/2020-5) and of 13 May 2021 (Case R 2321/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. sp.k. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. sp.k. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
STATE v. Reche SMITH.

No. 360A02.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 27, 2004.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mitchell D. Norton, District Attorney, for State of NC.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Reche Smith.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of May 2004 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 12th day of July 2004 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of May 2004."
Humberto VERDUZCO-MAGANA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9407

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
GREENWICH STREET SERIES FUND
on behalf of the
TOTAL RETURN PORTFOLIO

Supplement dated October 24, 1997
to the Prospectus dated April 29, 1997

	The following information supplements the information set 
forth in the Prospectus under "Additional Investments."

Real Estate Investment Trusts

The Portfolio may invest in real estate 
investment trusts ("REITs").  REITs are entities which 
either own properties or make construction or mortgage 
loans.  Equity trusts own real estate directly and the 
value of, and income earned by, the trust depends upon 
the income of the underlying properties and the rental 
income they earn.  Equity trusts may also include 
operating or finance companies.  Equity trusts can 
also realize capital gains by selling properties that 
have appreciated in value.  A mortgage trust can make 
construction, development or long-term mortgage loans, 
and are sensitive to the credit quality of the 
borrower.  Mortgage trusts derive their income from 
interest payments.  Hybrid trusts combine the 
characteristics of both equity and mortgage trusts, 
generally by holding both ownership interests and 
mortgage interests in real estate.  The value of 
securities issued by REITs are affected by tax and 
regulatory requirements and by perceptions of 
management skill.  They are also subject to heavy cash 
flow dependency, defaults by borrowers or tenants, 
self-liquidation, the possibility of failing to 
qualify for tax-free status under the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986, as amended, and failing to maintain 
exemption from the Investment Company Act of 1940,  as 
amended.






FD 1340
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Speegle Construction, Inc. 

Under Contract No. W91278-07-D-0038 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60089 

Jesse W. Rigby, Esq. 

Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, 

Bond & Stackhouse 

Pensacola, FL 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

David C. Brasfield, Jr. Esq. 

Andrea M. Dowdy, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 15 December 2016 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60089, Appeal of Speegle 

Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Shawntele Cortez JACKSON, Petitioner v. Kathy LITTERAL

No. 19-642

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 21, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: John Ruff and Catherine Loth, Individually and as Next 

Friends of A.R., a Minor Child v. The University of St. 

Thomas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00875-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-19616

Trial court: 190th District Court of Harris County

Appellants, John Ruff and Catherine Loth, Individually and as Next Friends of 

A.R., a Minor Child, have filed a motion to extend the deadline to file the clerk’s and 

reporter’s records to January 15, 2018. The clerk’s record and reporter’s record were due 

to be filed on December 18, 2017. That day, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants

that the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record had informed the 

Court that appellants had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, for the reporter’s record

and directed appellants to provide proof that they had paid, or made arrangements to pay, 

for the reporter’s record or are entitled to proceed without payment of costs by January 

17, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b), 37.3(c). The Clerk of this Court also notified the 

trial court clerk and the parties that a clerk’s record had not been timely filed and 

requested the trial court clerk, no later than January 19, 2018, to file the clerk’s record or 

advise the Court if appellants had not made arrangements to pay for preparation of the 

clerk’s record. See id. 35.3(a), 37.3(a)(1). Accordingly, we dismiss as moot appellants’

motion to extend the time for filing the clerk’s record and reporter’s record in this 

appeal.

1

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 11, 2018

 

1 The trial court clerk or court reporter may request an extension to file the record in this 

Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).
# Official Journal L 412/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 412 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6419 November 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 412

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6419 November 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1971 of 13 September 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 laying down implementing technical standards for templates, definitions and IT-solutions to be used by institutions when reporting to the European Banking Authority and to competent authorities in accordance with Article 78(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1971 of 13 September 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2070 laying down implementing technical standards for templates, definitions and IT-solutions to be used by institutions when reporting to the European Banking Authority and to competent authorities in accordance with Article 78(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 31.1

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Andrew Lee, Vice President of Synchrony Card Funding LLC, certifythat:

 

1.          Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by thisreport on Form 10-K of Synchrony Card Issuance Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.          Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.          Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosedin the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all materialrespects; and

 

5.          Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordancewith Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, exceptas otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed inthis report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, Citibank, N.A. and Citicorp TrustDelaware, National Association.

 

 

 

 

March 29, 2019
# C_2018241EN.01000102.xml

| 10.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8972 — Partners Group/CPPIB/GlobalLogic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 241/02)

On 2 July 2018, 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) 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 32018M8972. 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 32018M8972. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
of the Smith Barney Municipal Fund, Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Smith Barney Municipal Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") for the
year ended December 31, 1998, we considered its internal control,
including control activities for safeguarding securities, in
order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply
with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on
the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
the internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.






February 8, 1999
Castor Quintaires GONZALES, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6123

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BCTC V Assignor Corp. (the "Assignor");
2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
2. 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
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|May 13, 2005 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                                    
|------------ | ----------------------------------------------------
|             | Marc N. Teal                                        
|             | (Principal Financial Officer), BCTC V Assignor Corp.
|             |