alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# **Exhibit 32.2**

 

# **OFFICER’SCERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,the Chief Financial Officer of Western Sizzlin Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2005 and the financial statements contained therein, fully comply with the requirementsof Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and the information contained in the Form 10-Q and the financialstatements thereto fairly present, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of March 31, 2005,and the period then ended.

 
| /s/ Robyn B. Mabe |   |   | May 16, 2005 |
|-------------------|--------|--------|-------------------|

 

1

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,816
<SECURITIES>                                     5,954
<RECEIVABLES>                                       93
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        971
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,174
<PP&E>                                           3,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,198
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,445
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,926
<SALES>                                            224
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   224
<CGS>                                            2,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  76
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,246)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,246)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,246)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)


</TABLE>
Third Amendment to Code Share and Regulatory Cooperation and Marketing Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.1

 THIRD AMENDMENT 
 THIS THIRD AMENDMENT dated October 29, 2010, is entered into by and between UNITED AIR LINES, INC., (“UA”) and Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., (“ZK”), (United and Great
Lakes, each a “Party” and together, the “Parties”). 
 RECITALS 

WHEREAS, UA and ZK have previously executed that certain Code Share and Regulatory Cooperation and Marketing Agreement effective
as of May 1, 2001, as amended from time to time (United Contract No. 155716; the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22 of the Agreement, the parties may modify or amend the Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties have mutually agreed to revise the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Third
Amendment; and 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual obligations hereinafter set forth, the
receipt, adequacy, and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 
 1. All capitalized terms not otherwise
defined in this Third Amendment shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement. In the event of conflict between the terms of this Third Amendment and the terms of the Agreement, the terms of this Third Amendment shall prevail. 

2. Section 5 of the Agreement - Term - is deleted and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

“This Agreement, as amended, will continue through and expire on May 1, 2011; provided, however, that this Agreement may be terminated by
either party at that party’s election for convenience and, without cause, upon one hundred and eighty (180) days’ prior written notice.” 

  
 1 








  
 3. Section A of the Attachment 1 of
the Agreement - Effective as of November 1, 2010, ** is hereby deleted and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

**[Two pages omitted] 

  
 2 








  
 4. Counterparts. This Third
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, by original or facsimile signature, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed an original and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

 5. Full Force. The terms of this Third Amendment and the recitals to this Third Amendment are deemed to be incorporated in, and made a
part of, the Agreement. Except as otherwise amended herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, UA and ZK have executed this Third Amendment as set forth herein. 
  

			
	UNITED AIR LINES, INC.	 	GREAT LAKES AVIATION, LTD.
		
	By: /s/ Mark Schwalb	 	By: /s/ Charles R. Howell IV
	Name: Mark Schwalb	 	Names: Charles R. Howell IV
	Title: Sr. VP Alliances	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
	Date: November 1, 2010	 	Date: October 29, 2010

  

	**	Certain information in the publicly filed version of this document has been redacted pursuant to a confidential treatment request filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The redacted material has been filed separately with the Commission. 


  
 3
# C_2023338EN.01000901.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/9 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2023 — Novel Nutriology GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. (Case C-386/23, Novel Nutriology) (2023/C 338/13) Language of the case: German Referring court Bundesgerichtshof Parties to the main proceedings Defendant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Novel Nutriology GmbH Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. Questions referred The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 10(1) and (3) and Article 28(5) and (6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, ( 1 ) as last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1047/2012 ( 2 ) of 8 November 2012, and recitals 10 and 11 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health, ( 3 ) and recitals 4 and 5 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 536/2013 ( 4 ) of 11 June 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 432/2012: May plant or herbal substances (‘botanicals’) be advertised with health claims (Article 10(1) of Regulation [EC] No 1924/2006) or with references to general, non-specific benefits of the nutrient or food for overall good health or health-related well-being (Article 10(3) of Regulation [EC] No 1924/2006) without those claims being authorised under that regulation and included in the list of authorised claims pursuant to Articles 13 and 14 of the Regulation (Article 10(1) of the Regulation) or without those references being accompanied by a specific health claim contained in one of the lists referred to in Articles 13 or 14 of the Regulation (Article 10(3) of the Regulation), pending completion of the evaluation by the Authority and the examination by the Commission of the inclusion of the claims notified in respect of ‘botanicals’ in the Community lists referred to in Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation [EC] No 1924/2006? ( 1 )  
OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9. ( 2 )  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1047/2012 of 8 November 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 with regard to the list of nutrition claims (OJ 2012 L 310, p. 36). ( 3 )  
OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1. ( 4 )  Commission Regulation (EU) No 536/2013 of 11 June 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2013 L 160, p. 4).

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                    CNA SURETY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                            AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2000

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                          COMPANY                               INCORPORATED IN
                          -------                               ---------------
<S>                                                             <C>
CNA Surety Corporation......................................          Delaware
Capsure Holdings Corp. (f/k/a Nucorp, Inc.).................          Delaware
  Capsure Financial Group, Inc..............................          Oklahoma
     (f/k/a/ Nucorp Energy of Oklahoma, Inc.)
       NI Acquisition Corp..................................             Texas
       SI Acquisition Corp..................................             Texas
          Surewest Financial Corp...........................      South Dakota
            Surety Bonding Company of America...............      South Dakota
            Western Surety Company..........................      South Dakota
               Troy Fain Insurance, Inc.....................           Florida
       Universal Surety Holding Corp........................             Texas
          Universal Surety of America.......................             Texas
De Montfort Group Limited...................................    United Kingdom
</TABLE>
STATE v. JACKSON.

No. COA08-119.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Pasquotank (07CRS451).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. Haywood HICKS.

No. 224P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of May 2008 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 392 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 271
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 392

                          [Report No. 110-130]

   To ensure payment of United States assessments for United Nations 
     peacekeeping operations for the 2005 through 2008 time period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 2007

 Mr. Biden (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. 
Hagel) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
                 to the Committee on Foreign Relations

                             July 16, 2007

                Reported by Mr. Biden, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To ensure payment of United States assessments for United Nations 
     peacekeeping operations for the 2005 through 2008 time period.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON THE UNITED STATES SHARE OF ASSESSMENTS FOR 
              UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 404(b)(2)(B) of the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236; 22 
U.S.C. 287e note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
                            ``(v) For assessments made during calendar 
                        years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, 27.1 
                        percent.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 411 of the Department of State 
and Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2005 (title IV of division B of 
Public Law 108-447; 22 U.S.C. 287e note) is repealed.
                                                       Calendar No. 271

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 392

                          [Report No. 110-130]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To ensure payment of United States assessments for United Nations 
     peacekeeping operations for the 2005 through 2008 time period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 16, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit






Exhibit 10-b


To:
Viking Asset Purchaser No. 7 IC (the “Purchaser”) 
Citicorp Trustee Company Limited (the “Programme Trustee”) 

15 June 2016
Dear Sirs,
Extension of a receivables purchase agreement between the Purchaser, the Programme Trustee and ourselves as Seller dated 28 June 2011 as amended, (the “Receivables Purchase Agreement”).
We refer to the Receivables Purchase Agreement. We write to record the terms and conditions upon which the parties have agreed to extend the Receivables Purchase Agreement. 
In the definition of Termination Event, sub-clause (a) which appears in Clause 1 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the reference to “one (1) year “ shall be replaced by “five (5) years and 4 months, end of month”, which, for the avoidance of doubt, means that the Receivables Purchase Agreement will terminate on 31 October 2016.
Please acknowledge your acceptance of the terms and conditions contained in this Letter of Agreement by signing and returning the enclosed duplicate.
Yours faithfully,


for and on behalf of 
Meritor HVS AB
/s/ Carl D. Anderson, II                
Carl D. Anderson, II
We accept the terms and conditions set out in the Letter of Agreement of which the foregoing is the duplicate.


/s/ Cheryl Heslop                 
for and on behalf of  
Viking Asset Purchaser No. 7 IC


/s/ Davide Pluchino                 
for and on behalf of 
Citicorp Trustee Company Limited
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3172 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3172

  To provide conditions for funds made available for certain projects 
       located in the State of Louisiana, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 2008

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide conditions for funds made available for certain projects 
       located in the State of Louisiana, 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. CONDITIONS RELATING TO FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE FOR CERTAIN 
              LOUISIANA PROJECTS.

    With respect to funds made available for the Lake Pontchartrain and 
Vicinity project, the West Bank and Vicinity project, and elements of 
the Southeast Louisiana Urban Drainage project that are located within 
the geographic perimeter of the West Bank and Vicinity and Lake 
Pontchartrain and Vicinity projects to reach the Corps of Engineers 
designated 100-year level of protection--
            (1) the non-Federal cost allocations for the projects shall 
        be consistent with the cost-sharing provisions under which the 
        projects were originally constructed;
            (2) the non-Federal share for the projects shall be 
        repaid--
                    (A) in accordance with section 103(k) of the Water 
                Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)); 
                and
                    (B) within the 30-year period beginning on the date 
                on which the funds are made available; and
            (3) the expenditure of the funds may be made without regard 
        to individual amounts or purposes, except that any reallocation 
        of funds that are necessary to accomplish the established goals 
        are authorized, subject to the approval of--
                    (A) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; 
                and
                    (B) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
                Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         321,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,289,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     328,067,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (23,519,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             316,117,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     89,739,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       204,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 197,300,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               316,117,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,171,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,080,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,218,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,873,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,873,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,873,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,873,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7334

JOHN ALBERT WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus RICKY HARRISON, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-2085) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 23, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Albert Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Albert Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting the Respondents’ motion for summary judgment on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural r uling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Williams has not satisfied either standard. See Williams v. Harrison , No. CA-01-2085 (D.S.C. filed Aug. 1, 2002 & entered Aug. 2, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the3 appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Deborah PERRY, Employee, Plaintiff v. U.S. ASSEMBLIES, RTP, Employer CNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants.

No. 62P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

George W. Lennon, Raleigh, for Deborah Perry.

Jan N. Pittman, Jacob H. Wellman, Raleigh, for U.S. Assemblies, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of February 2006 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."