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


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     Each of the undersigned officers of Hauppauge Digital, Inc. hereby certify,
pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the  Quarterly  Report of
Hauppauge  Digital,  Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  as  amended,  and  that  information  contained  in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of Hauppauge Digital, Inc.


Dated:   May 14, 2004                                By:/s/ Kenneth Plotkin
                                                        -------------------
                                                        Kenneth Plotkin
                                                        Chief Executive Officer



Dated:   May 14, 2004                                By:/s/ Gerald Tucciarone
                                                        ---------------------
                                                        Gerald Tucciarone
                                                        Chief Financial Officer


     The foregoing  certification  is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 309/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 309/2014 of 20 March 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 309/2014                     

# of 20 March 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite de la Comunitat                        Valenciana (PDO)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat                              Valenciana’ was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name ‘Aceite de la Comunitat Valenciana’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name referred to in the first paragraph identifies a product in Class 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.)                     of Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006(3).                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 March 2014.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 276, 25.9.2013, p. 9.                           

3

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 of 14 December 2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Council Regulation                              (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs                              (OJ L 369, 23.12.2006, p. 1).
# CE2004084EN.01072701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/727 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/727

---

(2004/C 84 E/0818)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1939/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Commission quarterly briefings and Small Business Europe: the participation of government-funded national bodies in Commission briefings

Subject:

Is the Commission aware that the organisation known as ‘Small Business Europe’, which purports to represent all small businesses in the UK, is in fact a body created by the UK Labour Government, funded from tax payers money, with no mandate from actual small businesses and wholly unrepresentative of the sector? Could the Commission indicate how many government-funded and government funded national bodies like Small Business Europe are invited to attend regular quarterly briefings by the Commission for European SME and small business representative bodies and why? If the Commission is inviting national organisations, why does it not invite any of the UK bodies which actually do represent real small businesses?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

(30 June 2003)

In the framework of its strategy to enhance contacts with its stakeholders, Directorate General (DG) Enterprise invites a large number of business organisations at European and national level, with horizontal or sectoral interests to information meetings, seminars and conferences. These organisations draw their funds from a variety of sources.

At the last major conference (‘Industrial Policy in an Enlarged Europe’, on 21 January 2003) more than 200 such business associations were represented, along with participants from trade unions, environmental and consumer protection organisations, government and company representatives.

Several times per year DG Enterprise also invites a group of non-profit making, permanent organisations, which represent enterprises, professional federations or employers and have a horizontal or cross-cutting orientation, going beyond a specific economic sector. Most of these have national member organisations in several European states, which sometimes also participate in these meetings. Around half of the invited organisations represent small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) interests either exclusively or partly. The complete list can be found in the Coneccs database of the Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/civilsociety/coneccs/indexen.htm). The meeting structure is listed as ‘consultation with business organisations’ and comprises at present 26 organisations, among them the organisation called ‘smallbusi-ness|europe’.

The Commission is aware that ‘smallbusiness|europe’ is at present funded by the Small Business Service, an Executive Agency of the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry. ‘smallbusiness|europe’ is working in close co-operation with United Kingdom cross-sector organisations representing SMEs. It highlights their views at the European level and, the Commission understands, consults them regularly.

---
STATE v. HOOKER.

No. COA08-261.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (07CRS75293).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# CE2004088EN.01002101.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/21

---

(2004/C 88 E/0021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1282/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject:   Red diesel in agricultural vehicles

Subject:

Dutch farmers and contractors carrying out agricultural activities both in the Netherlands and in Germany encounter problems in Germany if the fuel tanks of their agricultural vehicles contain red diesel. The German tax authorities have already fined Dutch contractors on a number of occasions.

Although, in certain specific instances, Member States may themselves decide whether to allow the use of red diesel, Article 8(1) of Directive 92/81/EEC (1) seeks to prevent double taxation. Member States may therefore not levy excise duty on fuel obtained in another Member State.

1

According to a statement by the Netherlands' State Secretary for Finance, this issue has been discussed on the Commission's Excise Committee. The Commission has pledged to make a proposal to resolve the problems referred to.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made on producing the proposal to resolve the problems referred to and when it thinks it will be able to submit the proposal?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

(15 May 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-0904/03 (2) by Mr Jan Mulder.

2

---

(1)  OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12.

1

(2)  See page 17.

2

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1889/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat

Would the Commission give details of all internal audit reports received concerning Eurostat since September 1999?

Would the Commission also give details outlining what was said in these documents with regards to Eurostat?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

On 16 May 2003, as part of its follow-up to the 2001 discharge and at Parliament's request, the Commission sent the secretariat of the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) six internal audit reports drawn up by Eurostat's internal audit service over the period 1999-2002, in accordance with the rules laid down in the framework agreement on the transmission of confidential documents to Parliament. Also under the terms of that agreement, a report summarising the action taken on the internal audit reports was sent to the Cocobu secretariat on 20 May 2003, and on 3 July 2003 the Commission sent the President of Parliament the audit report entitled ‘Internal audit of the financial systems for Eurostat’, produced by the Directorate-General for Audit on 7 June 2000.

On 9 July 2003 the Commission took note of two reports from its departments concerning financial management and control at Eurostat. The first is an analysis by DG Budget of the audit reports produced by Eurostat's Internal Audit Capability (IAC). Ordered by the Commission on 21 May 2003 and sent to Cocobu on 11 July, the report analyses Eurostat's financial management and control systems and the action taken on internal audit reports from the point of view of compliance with the Financial Regulation. The second report is the interim report produced by the Internal Audit Service (IAS) under the remit it received from the Commission on 11 June 2003. The IAS report has been forwarded to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

Finally, on 8 July 2003, Eurostat completed an analysis of certain aspects of the SUPCOM programme. This report was sent to OLAF on 22 July 2003 under Article 7(1) of Regulation 1073/1999.

The Commission would also like to stress that certain audit reports are being investigated by OLAF and that some of these reports form part of the files which OLAF handed over to the judicial authorities in Luxembourg and to the Public Prosecutor at the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris. The Commission wishes to ensure that ongoing investigations are protected.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EDISON
MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         672,711
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,578
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               782,836
<PP&E>                                       3,207,850
<DEPRECIATION>                                 220,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,102,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          343,512
<BONDS>                                      2,560,230
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          150,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,130
<OTHER-SE>                                     808,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,102,297
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,874
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,022
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-37207, 333-64135 and 333-54440 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 24,
2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedules of CNA Surety Corporation and subsidiaries and management's report on
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CNA Surety Corporation and subsidiaries for
the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
February 24, 2006
# CE2004078EN.01035802.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/358 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/358

---

(2004/C 78 E/0377)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/03

by Ole Krarup (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject:   GM crops and liability

Subject:

How does the Commission assess the position in the WTO on the introduction of a liability clause for patent holders and/or producers of GM crops in the event of GMO contamination of conventionally or organically cultivated farmland?

More particularly, what initiatives has it taken to encourage a process at the WTO which will in the future mean that WTO rules incorporate provisions on the liability of patent holders and/or producers of GM crops to pay damages in the event of their product contaminating conventionally or organically cultivated crops?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

(16 May 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised the complex issue of liability in the case of GM crops spreading into conventional or organic crops, should this cause damage to conventional or organic producers.

The issue is related to intentional and non-intentional spread of GMOs into the environment and to the co-existence of different agricultural production systems and is in particular a matter of gene flow. Gene flow between crops related to production methods in the country of origin and is therefore not a trade issue per se. The Commission therefore does not consider that the WTO is the appropriate international forum to discuss gene flows between GM crops and conventional crops and a liability regime.

Liability is normally addressed in international conventions dealing with particular issues. In the case of GMOs, the Commission is currently involved in the on-going discussions on liability and redress in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Such discussions are, however, at a very early stage and the formal negotiating process on this matter will only be launched at the First Meeting of the Parties to the Biosafety Protocol which is due to take place in April 2004.

---
STATE v. WHITE.

No. COA07-1231.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06CRS201955).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
#### Turbo Carpentry Corp., Respondent, v Ralph Brancadoro et al., Appellants.

[800 NYS2d 566]

*480In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated March 29, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, discharging the mechanic’s lien, and on its counterclaims.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they paid the plaintiff in full for the reconstruction work performed on their property. In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding the amount owed to it and whether it was fully paid (see *Aaron v Great Bay Contr.,*290 AD2d 326 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and discharging the mechanic’s lien.

In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment on their two counterclaims. With respect to their first counterclaim, the defendants failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff willfully exaggerated the subject lien *(see Minelli Constr. Co. v Arben Corp.,*1 AD3d 580, 581 [2003]; *East Hills Metro v Dennis Constr. Corp.,*277 AD2d 348 [2000]; *Fidelity N.Y. v Kensington-Johnson Corp.,*234 AD2d 263 [1996]). The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the second counterclaim by submitting evidence that they sustained damages in the sum of $73,172.18 as a result of the plaintiffs failure to complete the reconstruction in a workmanlike manner *(see Brushton-Moira Cent. School Dist. v Thomas Assoc.,*91 NY2d 256, 260-261 [1998]; *Kaufman v Le Curt Constr. Corp.,*196 AD2d 577 [1993]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants, inter alia, “interfered with [the] plaintiffs access to the work site so as to hinder [the] plaintiffs ability to perform” the contract *(Stardial Communications Corp. v Turner Constr. Co.,*305 AD2d 126 [2003]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

#### **CERTIFICATIONS OFPERIODIC REPORT**

 

 

I, James A. Bowman, President and Chief Executive Officer of EncisionInc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

•                  the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended September30, 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

 

•                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:            October 17, 2003

 
|   |   | /s/ James A. Bowman                   |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                  |
|   |   | James A. Bowman                       |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

I, Marcia McHaffie, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer ofEncision Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

•                  the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended September30, 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

 

•                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:            October 17, 2003

 
|   |   | /s/ Marcia McHaffie                         |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                        |
|   |   | Marcia McHaffie                             |
|   |   | Controller and Principal Accounting Officer |

 

----