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

**Certification      of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted      pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| (i)   | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:                and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (ii)   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                 |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                Mark Hahn                                                         |   |   |   |
| Name:              Mark Hahn                                                         |   |   |        |
| Chief                  Financial OfficerDate: September                10, 2007 |   |   |   |

----
In the Matter of T.L.M.

No. COA15-894.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 10, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2010274EN.01003101.xml

| 9.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/31

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 1 July 2010 — Mandt v Parliament

(Case F-45/07) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Survivor's pension - Article 79 of the Staff Regulations - Article 18 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Surviving spouse - Recognition of two persons as the surviving spouse - Reduction to 50 % - Legitimate expectation - Requirement of consistency)

2010/C 274/46

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wolfgang Mandt (Kreuztal, Germany) (represented by: B. Kolb, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, K. Zejdová, J. F. de Wachter and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents, then, J. F. de Wachter, K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kurt-Wolfgang Braun Neumann who died on 9 October 2009, leaving Shirley Meyer as sole heir (Bedburg-Hau, Germany) (represented by: P. Ames, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 8.2.2007 rejecting the applicant's complaint regarding the reduction of the survivor's pension to 50 % — Claim for full payment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | There is no need to give a decision on the application requesting the Parliament to pay Mr Mandt the survivor's pension in full in so far as it relates to the period after 31 October 2009. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to give a decision on the application requesting the Parliament to pay Mr Mandt the survivor's pension in full in so far as it relates to the period after 31 October 2009.

| 2. | The remainder of the application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The remainder of the application is dismissed.

| 3. | The parties and the intervener shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The parties and the intervener shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007, p. 43.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Enliven Marketing Technologies Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Patrick Vogt and Christopher C. Duignan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 18
  U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

|   
|---
|(1)
|   
|(2)

|                      |  |     |  |                                                                       
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 17, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ PATRICKVOGTPatrick VogtPresident and Chief Executive Officer      
|Dated: March 17, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ CHRISTOPHERC. DUIGNANChristopher C. DuignanChief Financial Officer



---
# C_2008301EN.01000601.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Birgit Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH

(Case C-427/06) (1)

1

(Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 13 EC - Directive 2000/78/EC - Occupational pension scheme excluding the right to a pension of a spouse more than 15 years younger than the deceased former employee - Age discrimination - Link with Community law)

(2008/C 301/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Birgit Bartsch

Applicant:

Defendant: Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of the principle of no discrimination on the ground of age in Article 13 EC and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Occupational pension scheme (betriebliche Altersversorgung) excluding a right to retirement pension (Ruhegeld) for a surviving spouse 15 years younger than the deceased former employee — Application of the principle of no discrimination on the ground of age in the absence of a link to a situation envisaged by other provisions of Community law

Operative part of the judgment

The application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Community law of discrimination on the ground of age is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no link with Community law. No such link arises either from Article 13 EC, or, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, from Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, before the time-limit allowed to the Member State concerned for its transposition has expired.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
# C_2013336EN.01001402.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission

(Case T-496/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Annual market-sharing and price-fixing agreements - Rights of defence - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Principle that penalties must be specific to the offender - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Res judicata)

2013/C 336/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, formerly Repsol Lubricantes YPF y Especialidades, SA (Madrid, Spain); Repsol Petróleo, SA (Madrid); and Repsol, SA, formerly Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, J. Buendía Sierra, M. Muñoz de Juan and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP-38.710 Bitumen (Spain)), and for reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the claim of the European Commission seeking an increase of the amount of the fine; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the claim of the European Commission seeking an increase of the amount of the fine;

| 3. | Orders Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, Repsol Petróleo, SA and Repsol, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, Repsol Petróleo, SA and Repsol, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 10.15 

DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT BONUS PLANS 

     Certain of the Company’s officers and key managers are included in a bonus plan (the “Bonus Plan”). For Company executives (other than Mr. Wildrick) at and above the senior vicepresident level (the “Senior Participants”), bonus compensation is designed to reward Company-wide financial performance through tying the payment of bonuses primarily to the achievement by the Company of goals for net income after paymentof bonuses (“Net Income”). For all other Bonus Plan participants (the “Other Participants”), bonus compensation is also designed to reward the achievement of specific goals for departmental or individual performance. 

     Each Bonus Plan participant is notified by the Company of a dollar amount or the percentage of such participant’s base salary which he or she is eligible to earn as a bonus for any fiscal year.For the fiscal year 2007, the percentages communicated to our Bonus Plan participants ranged from 10% to 65% of base salary. For Senior Participants, a range of Net Income results has been established (the “Bonus Eligibility Range”). Belowthe low end of the Bonus Eligibility Range, bonuses are not expected to be paid to the Senior Participants. Within the Bonus Eligibility Range, the percentage of the maximum potential bonus expected to be paid to the Senior Participants increases asNet Income increases. If Net Income is at or above the highest level of Net Income within the Bonus Eligibility Range, each Senior Participant is eligible to earn his maximum bonus potential. For Other Participants, a single Net Income goal has beenestablished. Below this level, bonuses are not expected to be paid to the Other Participants. Above this level and assuming the Other Participants satisfy their individual performance goals, bonuses are expected to be paid. The final determinationof all bonus payments to executive officers is made by the Compensation Committee. The final determination of all bonus payments to Other Participants is made by Mr. Wildrick.

     Mr. Wildrick does not participate in the Bonus Plan. The employment agreement between the Company and Mr. Wildrick entitles Mr. Wildrick to a bonus of up to 250% of his base salary upon achievement bythe Company of certain specified earnings per share goals. The goals were established in 2003 for each year of the current term of Mr. Wildrick’s employment agreement (fiscal 2004 through fiscal 2008). 

----
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 23-20083 Summary Calendar

____________ Avivia Luciana Brown, Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus S. H. Quian, Officer ; P. T. Rubio, Officer , Defendants—Appellants

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CV-862

______________________________ Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: *
The defendants in this interlocut ory appeal challenge the district court’s denial, in part, of their motion to dismiss Avivia Luciana Brown’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In s upport of their appeal, the defendants contend that, contrary to the district court’s ruling, Brown did not allege facts showing that they violated her cons titutional rights, they were entitled

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 18, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-20083 Document: 00516862919 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2023No. 23-20083

2 to qualified immunity, and Br own’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). We have jurisdiction to review these arguments. See Poole v. City of Shreveport , 13 F.4th 420, 426 (5th Cir. 2021); Armstrong v. Ashley , 918 F.3d 419, 422 (5th Cir. 2019). Accepting Brown’s allegations as true and in a light most favorable to her, see Ramirez v. Guadarrama , 3 F.4th 129, 133 (5th Cir. 2021), the district court did not err in determining that Br own had stated a claim for relief under the Fourth Amendment and that the defendants’ alleged actions were objectively unreasonable in lig ht of clearly established law, see Ramirez v. Martinez , 716 F.3d 369, 379 (5th Cir. 2013); Newman v. Guedry , 703 F.3d 757, 763-64 (5th Cir. 2012); Spann v. Rainey , 987 F.2d 1110, 1112, 1115 (5th Cir. 1993). Last, the district court correctly determined that Heck has no bearing, given the finding that the prosecutor di smissed the criminal charge against Brown before trial, and the prosecution against Brown in state court ended without a conviction. See Heck , 512 U.S. at 486-87. Accordingly, the district court’s ruling is AFFIRMED. Case: 23-20083 Document: 00516862919 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2023
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3845 

To require the Administrator of NASA to assess the cost and schedule 

implications of extending science missions beyond planned mission lifetimes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2014 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of NASA to assess the cost 

and schedule implications of extending science missions 

beyond planned mission lifetimes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Assessing NASA 

5 Science Mission Extensions Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SCIENCE MISSION EXTENSIONS. 

7 Section 30504 of title 51, United States Code is 

8 amended to read as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3845 IH

1 ‘‘§ 30504. Assessment of science mission extensions 

2 ‘‘(a) ASSESSMENT.—The Administrator shall carry 

3 out biennial reviews within each of the Science divisions 

4 to assess the cost and benefits of extending the date of 

5 the termination of data collection for those missions that 

6 have exceeded their planned mission lifetime. In con7 ducting these assessments, the Administrator shall con8 sider— 

9 ‘‘(1) the potential continued benefit of instru10 ments on missions that are beyond their planned 

11 mission lifetime; and 

12 ‘‘(2) the cost and schedule impacts, if any, of 

13 mission extension on other NASA activities and 

14 science missions. 

15 ‘‘(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.—When decid16 ing whether to extend science missions with an operational 

17 component, the Administrator shall consult with the Na18 tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and any 

19 other affected Federal agency.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19076]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK


Sunshine Act Meeting

ACTION: Notice of an open meeting of the Board of Directors of the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TIME AND PLACE:  Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. The 
meeting will held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20571.

OPEN AGENDA ITEM:  PEFCO Secured Note Issues (Resolution).

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:  The portion of the meeting, which relates to the 
above item, will be open to public participation. Attendees that are 
not employees of the Executive Branch will be required to sign in prior 
to the meeting.

FURTHER INFORMATION:  For further information, contact: Office of the 
Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571 (Telephone No. 
(202) 565-3957).

Howard A. Schweitzer,
General Counsel (Acting).
[FR Doc. 05-19076 Filed 9-20-05; 2:53 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
         COMPANY'S INCOME STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET DATED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
         QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              330
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       3,787
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5,220
<PP&E>                                              372
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2,050
<BONDS>                                           1,035
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         20,722
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5,637
<SALES>                                           5,991
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5,991
<CGS>                                             3,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3,102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (816)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (816)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.14)



</TABLE>
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 21 May 2008 – Enercon v OHIM (E)**

**(Case T-329/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark E – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29-30)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 394/2006‐1) concerning the registration of the word mark E as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Enercon GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark E for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 17 – Application No 3817566 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs. |
STATE. v. Reginal FULLARD.

No. 455P14-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Reginald Fullard, For Fullard, Reginald.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion***200The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of July 2015 by Defendant to Appeal and Be Constitutionally Heard in Open Court Before a Sworn Jury:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
# C_2008092EN.01004802.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/48

---

Action brought on 9 November 2007 — Hecq v Commission

(Case F-133/07)

(2008/C 92/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: André Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

(i) annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2007 to the extent that it dismisses a complaint brought by the applicant against a decision of the appointing authority which refused him entitlement to certain benefits, and (ii) order that the defendant pay compensation and default interest

Form of order sought

| — | Annul in part the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2007 to the extent that it dismisses the application for benefits brought by the applicant in terms of his complaint of 19 March 2007, and to the extent that it rejects the principle of default interest calculated, from 29 April 2003 on benefits which might be awarded to the applicant under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in part the decision of the appointing authority of 12 July 2007 to the extent that it dismisses the application for benefits brought by the applicant in terms of his complaint of 19 March 2007, and to the extent that it rejects the principle of default interest calculated, from 29 April 2003 on benefits which might be awarded to the applicant under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;

| — | Order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 2 000, with the addition of interest at the rate of 6 %, to date from 19 March 2007, but subject to any subsequent increase, decrease or specification; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 2 000, with the addition of interest at the rate of 6 %, to date from 19 March 2007, but subject to any subsequent increase, decrease or specification;

| — | Order the defendant to pay to the applicant default interest, at the rate of 6 % per annum, on all benefits which might subsequently be awarded to him under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay to the applicant default interest, at the rate of 6 % per annum, on all benefits which might subsequently be awarded to him under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;

per annum

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---