alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Peter Papano, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    PETER PAPANO                  
|Peter Papano                         
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



August 9, 2004
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 29, 2008

Mr. Mike A. Hatchell

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 300

Austin, TX 78701-4042

Mr. P. Michael Jung

Strasburger & Price, L.L.P.

901 Main Street, Suite 4400

Dallas, TX 75202-3794

RE:Case Number:  07-0085

Court of Appeals Number:  06-05-00036-CV

Trial Court Number:  2003-481

Style:BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY

v.

BARBARA GOSS

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0085Page 1**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner

v.

STEVEN JAMES LYNCH

,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2 359 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 29 DB 2017

Attorney Registration No. 37575

( Washington County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15 th day of Ju ly , 2019, upon consideration of the Verified

Statement o f Resignation, Steven James Lynch is disbarred on consent from the Bar of

this Commonwealth. See Pa.R.D.E. 215 . Respondent shall comply with the provisions

of Pa.R.D.E. 217 , and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          86,219
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,005,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 17,079,374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,291,240
<PP&E>                                      11,555,219
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,156,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,625,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,511,317
<BONDS>                                     21,504,957
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           67,694
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,331,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,625,444
<SALES>                                     33,998,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,998,198             
<CGS>                                       26,746,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,746,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,571,418
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,049,337
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                631,071
<INCOME-TAX>                                   239,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            391,671
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   391,671
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
                                                          

</TABLE>
IN RE J.M.P.

No. COA08-1187.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Greene (03JT43).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          44,335
<SECURITIES>                                     8,733
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                       226
<INVENTORY>                                      1,354
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,631
<PP&E>                                       1,082,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                 245,959
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 932,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,170
<BONDS>                                        824,612
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   932,977
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               209,003
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                97,262
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    178
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (90)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 88
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        88
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1320

WILLIAM C. BOND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, District of Maryland, Northern

Division; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, for the District of

Maryland,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:07-cv-01188-WDQ)

Submitted: August 28, 2008 Decided: September 12, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*Bond also appeals from the district court’s denial of his

motion for reconsideration, motion to recuse, and motion for leave

to file an amended complaint. Upon review of the record, we find

the district court did not err in denying Bond’s motions.

2

PER CURIAM:

William C. Bond appeals from the district court’s orders

dismissing his action seeking relief under the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 552 (West 2007 & Supp. 2008). We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.*

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Bond v. United States Attorney, No. 1:07-cv-01188-WDQ

(D. Md. May 17 & Nov. 20, 2007). Additionally, we deny all of

Bond’s pending motions. 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.

AFFIRMED
# CE2004078EN.01026701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/267 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/267

---

(2004/C 78 E/0267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3342/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Financial aid to Danish immigrant associations

Subject:

In questions Nos. E-3162/03 (1) and E-3211/03 (2) to the Commission, I described how ‘Paraplyorganisation for de Etniske Mindretal’ (umbrella organisation for ethnic minorities — POEM) swindled money from the Danish government and the European Social Fund. POEM is an umbrella organisation for between 21 and 32 different organisations and associations for ethnic minorities (there is a good deal of confusion as to the exact number of members). The chairman of POEM, Bashy Qureishy, is also chairman of two of those associations — Fair Play and Etnisk Debatforum.

1

2

Both of these organisations have received financial aid from the EU Information Board in Denmark, which comes under the Danish Ministry of Education. These two associations received a total of Dkr 179 800 in 2002 and 2003 from the EU Information Board (the Board does not receive funding from the EU but is financed solely through the Danish budget).

In the light of the above-mentioned swindle involving financial aid to POEM, will the Commission say whether the two associations, Fair Play and Etnisk Debatforum, have received any form of financial contribution under EU aid schemes, including the European Social Fund, since 1998? If those associations have received funding, will the Commission say under which programmes/schemes the aid was granted, what sum was involved and whether the Commission has checked that the funding was used for the purposes for which it was granted?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

(10 December 2003)

In accordance with Structural Funds Regulations, the main responsibility for managing European Social Fund (ESF)-funds lies with the national managing authority, in casu Erhvervs- og Boligstyrelsen (EBST). As such, the Commission does not have a detailed list of all organisations receiving ESF funding under the different programmes.

Upon receipt of the Honourable Member's written question, the Commission has contacted the national authorities at EBST and requested it the information concerning the two associations, Fair Play and Etnisk Debatforum. EBST confirms that a search in the project database OPUS demonstrates that, to date, neither of these two organisations has received any ESF-funds under the Danish Objective 2, Objective 3 or EQUAL programme (2000-2006), nor in the previous ESF programming period (1994-1999).

The Commission is closely monitoring the follow-up to the findings and allegations concerning POEM by the Danish Managing Authority and its control service.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 227.

1

(2)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 240.

2

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.03

                 QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Quintiles Transnational Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A, for
the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis B. Gillings, Chairman of
the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

                                                     /s/ Dennis B. Gillings
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Dennis B. Gillings
                                                     Chairman

                                                     April 29, 2003
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     Date

                                       65
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 649 

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct an independent 

safety assessment of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Mrs. CLINTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct 

an independent safety assessment of the Indian Point 

Nuclear Power Plant. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INDEPENDENT SAFETY ASSESSMENT. 

4 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

5 of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall sub6 mit to Congress a report containing the results of— 

7 (1) a focused, in-depth independent safety as8 sessment of the design, construction, maintenance, 

9 and operational safety performance of the systems at 

10 the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, Reactors 2 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 649 IS

1 and 3, located in Westchester County, New York, in2 cluding the systems described in section 2; and 

3 (2) a comprehensive evaluation of the radio4 logical emergency plan for the Indian Point Nuclear 

5 Power Plant, Reactors 2 and 3, conducted by the 

6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Depart7 ment of Homeland Security, which shall include— 

8 (A) a detailed explanation of the factual 

9 basis on which the Nuclear Regulatory Commis10 sion and the Federal Emergency Management 

11 Agency relied (during the period beginning on 

12 July 25, 2003, and ending on the date of enact13 ment of this Act) in— 

14 (i) approving the radiological emer15 gency plan; and 

16 (ii) making subsequent annual find17 ings of reasonable assurance that the plan 

18 would adequately protect the public in the 

19 event of an emergency; and 

20 (B) a detailed response to each of the criti21 cisms of the radiological emergency plan con22 tained in the Review of Emergency Prepared23 ness of Areas Adjacent to Indian Point and 

24 Millstone, published by James Lee Witt Associ25 ates on January 10, 2003. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•S 649 IS

1 SEC. 2. SYSTEMS. 

2 The systems referred to in section 1(1) are— 

3 (1) the reactor protection system; 

4 (2) the control room ventilation system and the 

5 containment ventilation system; 

6 (3) the 4.16 kV electrical system; 

7 (4) the condensate system; and 

8 (5) the spent fuel storage system. 

9 SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT SAFETY ASSESSMENT MODEL. 

10 The independent safety assessment conducted at the 

11 Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant under this Act shall 

12 be equal in depth and breadth to the independent safety 

13 assessment of the Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, lo14 cated near Bath, Maine, conducted by the Nuclear Regu15 latory Commission during 1996. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
# CE2004070EN.01014901.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/149 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/149

---

(2004/C 70 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2866/03

by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Council

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   The ‘European Public Affairs and Human Rights Office’ of the Church of Scientology

Subject:

The setting up of the Church of Scientology's European Public Affairs and Human Rights Office in Brussels, and the Church's lobbying threatened to lead to confusion between the work of the European institutions and those of scientologists.

The latter avoid presenting themselves as members of the Church of Scientology, and use satellite organisations to infiltrate the European institutions.

What does the Council think of the lobbying practices of Scientology, which uses religion as a commercial product?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

(8 December 2003)

The Council has not discussed the question raised by the Honourable Member.

---
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-QSB
for  the  period  ended September 30, 2004,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President  of  AEI
Fund  Management XXI, Inc., the Managing General Partner  of  the
Partnership, and Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI
Fund  Management XXI, Inc., each certify, pursuant to  18  U.S.C.
1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  fully  complies with the  requirements  of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act
          of 1934; and

     2.   The   information  contained  in  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 10, 2004



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 10, 2004
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. §1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the annual report of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for theperiod ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Lindsay A. Hall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date:  March 31, 2011 /s/ Lindsay A. Hall   Lindsay A. Hall   Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toGoldcorp Inc. and will be retained by Goldcorp Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.This certification accompanies the annual report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.
# C_2008301EN.01000502.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Heinrich Bauer Verlag Beteiligungs GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

(Case C-360/06) (1)

1

(Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Valuation of unlisted shares in limited companies)

(2008/C 301/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heinrich Bauer Verlag BeteiligungsGmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

Defendant:

Intervener: Heinrich Bauer Verlag KG

Intervener:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) — Valuation of unlisted shares in limited companies — Difference between the valuation of a share in a national partnership and a share in a partnership established in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

In the absence of valid justification, Articles 52 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 52 of the EC Treaty, and now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and 58 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 58 of the EC Treaty, and now Article 48 EC) preclude the application of tax legislation of a Member State which, for the purposes of valuing the unlisted shares of a company in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, causes that company's holding in a partnership established in another Member State, subject to the condition that such a holding is capable of allowing it a definite influence on the decisions of the partnership established in the other Member State and enabling it to determine its activities, to be assigned a greater value than its holding in a partnership established in the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
**Exhibit 99.21****CONSENT OF A. TRIPP**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated byreference therein (the “40-F”) of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December31, 2009, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and theAnnual Information Form (the “AIF”) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of theCompany for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference inthe 40-F.     I hereby consent to the references, as applicable, to my name in connection with (including,as an expert) the following report(s) and documents: 1. The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connectionwith information relating to the Marlin Mine, and the propertiesdescribed therein.Date:March 19, 2010              /s/ Andrew S. Tripp    Name:  Andrew S. Tripp, P. Eng.     Marlin Mine