alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.02
***CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER***
     I, Theresa D. Becks, the Chief Financial Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc. as managingoperator, of The Campbell Fund Trust, certify that (i) the Form 10K for the year ended December 31,2004 of The Campbell Fund Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10K for the yearended December 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of The Campbell Fund Trust.         THE CAMPBELL FUND TRUST    By: Campbell & Company, Inc., managing operator          By: /s/ Theresa D. Becks          Theresa D. Becks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated financial statements of Twin City Bancorp,
Inc. and Subsidiaries in the filing to which this schedule is an
exhibit and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,910
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,984
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,650
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 20,794
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             0
<LOANS>                                     76,873
<ALLOWANCE>                                    220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             107,345
<DEPOSITS>                                  90,387
<SHORT-TERM>                                     0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,158
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,000
<COMMON>                                       854
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             107,345
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,305
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              685
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                57
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,407
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,007
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,078
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,969
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   64
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              (2)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,409
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                848
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     848
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   512
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .43 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .42 <F1>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                3.45
<LOANS-NON>                                     85
<LOANS-PAST>                                     0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               327
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  171
<RECOVERIES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              220
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           220
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0
<FN>
<F1>  Restated for adoption of SFAS 128
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Eddie Lamar TAYLOR.

No. 719A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 11, 2008.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Eddie Taylor.

William Crumpler, Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney Generals, Susan Doyle, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of February 2008 by Defendant for Leave to File Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of February 2008."
RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2
        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                            OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Scott H. Rechler, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Reckson Associates Realty
Corp. (the "Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1)          The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
            period ended March 31, 2003 (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.

Dated:  May 9, 2003

                       By               /s/ Scott H. Rechler
                          -----------------------------------------------------
                          Scott H. Rechler, Co-Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Reckson Associates Realty Corp. and will be furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2023173EN.01004101.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/41

---

Action brought on 30 March 2023 — VR v Parliament

(Case T-171/23)

(2023/C 173/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VR (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

and consequently,

| — | annul the decision of 9 June 2022 notifying the applicant that his contract would be terminated and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 20 December 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 9 June 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 9 June 2022 notifying the applicant that his contract would be terminated and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 20 December 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 9 June 2022;

| — | order the defendant to make good the damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to make good the damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

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 a manifest error of assessment as regards the grounds for the decision and breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment as regards the grounds for the decision and breach of the principle of proportionality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, more specifically, the right to be heard, the obligation to state reasons, compliance with the requirement of impartiality on the part of the administration and the duty of diligence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, more specifically, the right to be heard, the obligation to state reasons, compliance with the requirement of impartiality on the part of the administration and the duty of diligence.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.

---
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.3






FIRST AMENDMENT TO AUGUST 10, 2015 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.




WHEREAS, FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) has heretofore entered into an Employment Agreement dated August 10, 2015 (the “Agreement”) by and between Steven G. Rush (the “Executive”) and the Company and the parties thereto desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth below. 


NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties to the Agreement agree that the Agreement shall be amended as follows, and that there is mutual, adequate and lawful consideration the receipt of which each acknowledges through execution of this First Amendment. 


		
	1.
	The last sentence of subsection 3(a) of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replace with the following:




Executive shall have a physical presence in Portland, Maine and Manchester, New Hampshire and also understands and agrees that he may be required to travel to other locations as the business needs of the Company require. 


		
	2.
	Section 23 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety.




		
	3.
	Except as specifically provided above, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




Wherefore, the parties hereto agree to this First Amendment, with the foregoing changes being effective as of June 1, 2016.


FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.




/s/ Paul H. Sunu                        
By:    Paul H. Sunu
Title:    Chief Executive Officer


EXECUTIVE




/s/ Steven G. Rush                        
Steven G. Rush
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 32

                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
        (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
                               United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of UST Private Equity Investors Fund, Inc. (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2004 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 16, 2004                       /s/ David I. Fann
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: David I. Fann
                                          Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 16, 2004                       /s/ Douglas A. Lindgren
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Douglas A. Lindgren
                                          Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 16, 2004                       /s/ Robert F. Aufenanger
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Robert F. Aufenanger
                                          Title: Treasurer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE v. MORGAN and Brunson.

No. 284P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Gary R. Govert, Special Deputy Attorney General, M. Lynne Weaver, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of June 2007 by Defendant (Morgan) to Proceed as Forma Pauperis:

*537"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
Exhibit 10.3



		

			Exhibit 10.3

		




		
			CORRECTION TO RAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT
		

		
			THIS CORRECTION to the RAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), is entered into this 12th day of May, 2016 and is effective as of the 1st day of July, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Green Plains Logistics LLC (the “Operator”) and Green Plains Trade Group LLC (the “Customer”).  Customer and Operator are sometimes referred to in this Agreement as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.” 
		

		
			WHEREAS,  the parties recognize a scrivener’s error in the Agreement and desire to correct such error to reflect the intent of the parties. Terms used herein not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises of the parties and covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows:
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			 Section 3.c.i. of the Agreement is hereby modified as follows:  The word “OR” shall be inserted after “regulations” and before “related” in Section 3.c.i.




		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.
		

		
			OPERATOR: GREEN PLAINS LOGISTICS LLC

		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Signature: /s/ Jerry Peters
		

		
			Print Name:Jerry Peters
		

		
			Title:Chief Financial Officer
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			CUSTOMER: GREEN PLAINS TRADE GROUP LLC

		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Signature: /s/ Jerry Peters
		

		
			Print Name:Jerry Peters
		

		
			Title:Chief Financial Officer
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
STATE v. LOVE.

No. COA06-916.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Columbus (03CRS54718, 03CRS54761).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 4.54

Schedule of Warrants

Issued in Connection with Convertible Secured Debt
Financing







`Date of         Name of                 Warrant Number          Expiration Date
Issuance        Warrant Recipient       No.     Shares


12/01/00        GSI Ventures, LLC       GSI-1   200,000         12/01/05

12/08/00        GSI Ventures, LLC       GSI-2    50,000         12/08/05

12/13/00        GSI Ventures, LLC       GSI-3    50,000         12/13/05

12/15/00        GSI Ventures, LLC       GSI-4    50,000         12/15/05

12/21/00        The Shaar Fund, Ltd.    GSI-5   100,000         12/21/05

02/08/01        GSI Ventures, LLC       GSI-6    35,000         02/08/06`



---
Lawrence E. ROUSH v. Tolly A. KENNON, Jr., DDS, P.A., a North Carolina Professional Association and Tolly A. Kennon, Jr., DDS, Individually.

No. 97P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Kenneth L. Jones, Greensboro, for Kennon.

Thomas Ainsworth, III, Charlotte, for Roush.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 656 S.E.2d 603.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 24th day of March 2008 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J., recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,616,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 13,330,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,776,000
<PP&E>                                     424,463,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             550,896,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,570,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       260,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 225,381,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               225,641,000
<SALES>                                    126,794,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           126,794,000
<CGS>                                       29,320,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              195,807,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,924,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             82,273,000
<INCOME-TAX>                              (17,969,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (64,304,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (64,304,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.47)



</TABLE>
# C_2023314EN.01000701.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/7

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-412/23)

(2023/C 314/10)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and R. Lindenthal, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by continuously failing, in 2015, 2016, 2017 and from 2018, to ensure that public entities providing healthcare paid their commercial debts within a period of a maximum of 60 calendar days, and as a result of this situation continuing to exist, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2011/7 (1) on combating late payment in commercial transactions, in particular Article 4(3) and 4(4)(b) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by continuously failing, in 2015, 2016, 2017 and from 2018, to ensure that public entities providing healthcare paid their commercial debts within a period of a maximum of 60 calendar days, and as a result of this situation continuing to exist, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2011/7 (1) on combating late payment in commercial transactions, in particular Article 4(3) and 4(4)(b) thereof;

| — | order Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/7, the Slovak Republic was to ensure that, in commercial transactions where the debtor was a public authority, the period for payment of those sums due as remuneration for those transactions with undertakings did not exceed 30 calendar days from fulfilment of the factual circumstances listed therein. Meanwhile, under Article 4(4)(b) of the Directive, in the Slovak Republic public entities providing healthcare can extend that deadline to 60 calendar days.

However, the Slovak Republic has failed to ensure that, in the case of those public entities providing healthcare, the period for payment in commercial transactions where those entities constitute the debtors did not exceed 60 calendar days.

From data concerning the average period for payment of debts on the part of public hospitals in commercial transactions, it is apparent that in 2015, 2016, 2017 and from 2018 until the point at which the present application was lodged, the Slovak Republic has continuously failed to comply with Article 4(3) and Article 4(4)(b) of the Directive.

---

(1)  Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1).

---
STATE v. Rodney TAYLOR.

No. 505A99-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of September 2007 by Defendant to Dismiss Post-Conviction Counsel(s) and Have New Post-Conviction Counsel(s) Appointed:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of December 2007."
# C_2022472EN.01004901.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/49

---

Action brought on 1 November 2022 — SkinIdent v EUIPO — Beiersdorf (NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL Q10)

(Case T-665/22)

(2022/C 472/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: SkinIdent AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beiersdorf AG (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark NIVEA SKIN-IDENTICAL Q10 — Application for registration No 18 041 739

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 August 2022 in Case R 1499/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 1 July 2021 in Case B 3 091 527; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 1 July 2021 in Case B 3 091 527;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
CALHOUN v. GOLIAN.

No. COA06-1525.

Court of appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 18, 2007.

Certification Date October 8, 2007.

Appeal from Wake (98CVD13218).

Case reported without published opinion affirmed.