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





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SouthCrest
      Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30,
      2007 (the “ Periodic Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350 United
      States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, to the best of his individual knowledge and belief, that the Periodic
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
      Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      November 14, 2007





/s/
                Douglas J. HerthaDouglas J. Hertha
              Chief
                Financial Officer
# C_2010037EN.01003301.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2009 — Cofac v Commission

(Case T-158/07) (1)

1

(ESF - Reduction in financial assistance - Training schemes - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard)

2010/C 37/42

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cofac — Cooperativa de Formação e Animação Cultural, CRL (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L. Gomes, J. Ortigão and C. Peixoto, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision D(2005) 13066 of 3 June 2005 reducing the amount of the financial assistance granted to the applicant by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision No C(88) 0831 of 29 April 1988 for training schemes (file No 880707 P1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cofac — Cooperativa de Formação e Animação Cultural, CRL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cofac — Cooperativa de Formação e Animação Cultural, CRL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---
# C_2009082EN.01000601.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Vereniging Noordelijke Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-515/07) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Goods and services forming part of the assets of a business for use in taxable transactions and in transactions other than taxable transactions - Right to an immediate and full deduction of the tax paid in respect of the acquisition of such goods and services)

(2009/C 82/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vereniging Noordelijke Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 6(2) and 17(1), (2) and (6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Goods and services (not only capital goods used partly for business and partly for private purposes) — Allocation in full to the taxpayer's business assets — Possibility of deducting immediately and in full the tax on the purchase of such goods and services.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6(2)(a) and 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as not being applicable to the use of goods and services allocated to the business for the purpose of transactions other than the taxable transactions of the taxable person, as the value added tax due in respect of the acquisition of those goods and services, and relating to such transactions, is not deductible.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136422 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136422 

 COA: 275846 

Calhoun CC: 2006-209453-FH 

KELLY LEE POWELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
COUNTY of Lenoir, Plaintiff, v. Helen DAVIS, et al, Defendants.

No. COA16-298

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

DISMISSED.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11047

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-21019-UU-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DAVID MARRERO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 13, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-11047 Date Filed: 08/13/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

David Marrero appeals the denial of his pro se motion to dismiss his 

indictment for health care fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and 

money laundering. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B). Marrero moved to dismiss 

his indictment more than two years after his conviction became final on direct 

appeal. He argued that his indictment was void ab initio because the offenses 

charged were not within the power of Congress to regulate under the Commerce 

Clause. The district court denied Marrero’s motion. Because Marrero failed to file 

his motion while his case was pending, see id., we vacate the order that denied his 

motion on the merits and remand with instructions for the district court to dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction.

“[W]e are obligated to address the district court’s jurisdiction to issue a 

ruling we are reviewing on appeal.” United States v. Diveroli, 729 F.3d 1339, 

1341 (11th Cir. 2013). “[W]e review jurisdictional issues de novo.” United States 

v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009).

The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Marrero’s collateral 

challenge to his indictment. A defendant may move to dismiss the charges against 

him on the ground there is a “defect in the indictment,” but the motion must be

filed “while the case is pending.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B). When a case is no 

longer pending, the district court is divested of authority to consider a motion for 

relief from the judgment. See United States v. Elso, 571 F.3d 1163, 1166 (11th 

Case: 14-11047 Date Filed: 08/13/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Cir. 2009). Marrero’s case was no longer pending after he exhausted his claims on 

direct appeal and we issued our mandate on September 14, 2011. See id. On 

February 19, 2014, when Marrero moved to dismiss his indictment, the district 

court lacked authority to consider Marrero’s motion. We vacate the order that 

denied Marrero’s motion on its merits and remand with instructions for the district 

court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Case: 14-11047 Date Filed: 08/13/2014 Page: 3 of 3
Eric Marshall Harris Boling, Plaintiff v. Ronnie Clayton Greer and Estes Express Lines, Incorporated, Defendants.

No. COA15-681

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  INCOME  STATEMENT AND BALANCE  SHEET DATED  SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                              474
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       975
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       3,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5,131
<PP&E>                                              299
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2,260
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         20,725
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5,472
<SALES>                                           9,087
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9,087
<CGS>                                             5,538
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1,194)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1,194)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.20)


</TABLE>
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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gerard R. Waldt, Jr., the Interim Chief Accounting Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of 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, as amended; and 

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

 

| Date: May 3, 2018 | By:    | /S/ GERARD R. WALDT, JR.

  |
|-------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|              |   | Gerard R. Waldt, Jr.             |
|              |   | Interim Chief Accounting Officer |
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Alan
Goldsworthy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Walt Hilger, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, 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
Company.

                                           /s/ Alan Goldsworthy
                                           ------------------------------------
Dated: August 14, 2002                     Alan Goldsworthy
                                           Chief Executive Officer


                                           /s/ Walt Hilger
                                           ------------------------------------
Dated: August 13, 2002                     Walt Hilger
                                           Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00427-CR

Charles Edward Wilkinson

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 271st District Court

of Wise County (CR15973)

January 9, 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Bill Meier
# CE2004070EN.01024901.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/249 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/249

---

(2004/C 70 E/268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3269/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject:   Repeal of legislation

Subject:

How many pieces of legislation (directives, regulations, decisions) have been repealed in each year for the last five years?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

(20 November 2003)

The number of legislative instruments which are repealed or expire each year are listed in the General Report on the Activities of the European Union:

| — | 2002 General Report, Point 1095, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/2002/pt1095.htm); |
| --- | --- |

—

2002 General Report, Point 1095, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/2002/pt1095.htm);

| — | 2001 General Report, Point 1212, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/2001/pt1212.htm); |
| --- | --- |

—

2001 General Report, Point 1212, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/2001/pt1212.htm);

| — | 2000 General Report, Point 1154, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/2000/pt1154.htm); |
| --- | --- |

—

2000 General Report, Point 1154, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/2000/pt1154.htm);

| — | 1999 General Report, Point 1036, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/1999/pt1036.htm); |
| --- | --- |

—

1999 General Report, Point 1036, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/1999/pt1036.htm);

| — | 1998 General Report, Point 1090, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/1998/pt0028.htm); |
| --- | --- |

—

1998 General Report, Point 1090, (http://europa.eu.int/abc/doc/off/rg/en/1998/pt0028.htm);

The data are extracted mid-January from the interinstitutional automated documentation system for Community law, CELEX, and do not include instruments not published in the Official Journal of the European Union or published in light type (routine management instruments valid for a limited period).

Official Journal of the European Union

The data are summarised in the table which has been sent direct to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.

---
# C_2008037EN.01002001.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Commune de Sausheim v Pierre Azelvandre

(Case C-552/07)

(2008/C 37/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commune de Sausheim

Appellant:

Respondent: Pierre Azelvandre

Respondent:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must ‘the location where the release’ of genetically modified organisms ‘will be carried out’ which, under Article 19 of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (1), may not be kept confidential, mean the registered parcel of land or a larger geographical area corresponding either to the commune in which the release occurs or to an even greater area such as a Canton or Department? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must ‘the location where the release’ of genetically modified organisms ‘will be carried out’ which, under Article 19 of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (1), may not be kept confidential, mean the registered parcel of land or a larger geographical area corresponding either to the commune in which the release occurs or to an even greater area such as a Canton or Department?

1

| 2. | If the location is to be understood as requiring designation of the registered parcel of land, can an exception relating to the protection of public order or other confidential matters protected by law preclude, on the basis of Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, now the European [Union], or of Directive 2003/4/EC (2) of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information or of a general principle of Community law, the disclosure of the registered reference number or numbers of the location of the release? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the location is to be understood as requiring designation of the registered parcel of land, can an exception relating to the protection of public order or other confidential matters protected by law preclude, on the basis of Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, now the European [Union], or of Directive 2003/4/EC (2) of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information or of a general principle of Community law, the disclosure of the registered reference number or numbers of the location of the release?

2

---

(1)  OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15.

1

(2)  Directive 2003/4/EC of 28 January 2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

2

---
# C_2008051EN.01003802.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/38

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-482/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 51/64)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
In the Matter of the Estate of Charles E. Sanders, Sr., deceased.

No. COA15-1244

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.17

                       Amendment to the Dime Bancorp, Inc.
                            1991 Stock Incentive Plan

                           Effective December 12, 2000


                  The Dime Bancorp, Inc. 1991 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan")
         is hereby amended in the following particulars:


                  1. The language of Section 15.1 of the Plan preceding the
         colon is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

                     "15.1 Unless otherwise determined by the Committee at the
                     time of grant or by amendment (with the holder's consent)
                     of such grant, in the event of the earlier of (i) the
                     occurrence of a Termination Event, or (ii) the occurrence
                     of a Change in Control (as defined in Section 15.4), and
                     solely with respect to awards held by an individual in
                     service with Bancorp or a Related Company at the time of
                     any such event described in clause (i) or (ii) above"
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 22

- 10245

____________________ KVK

- TECH, INC., Plaintiff

- Counter Defendant

- Appellant, versus NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant

- Counter Claimant

- Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama USCA11 Case: 22-10245 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 22
- 10245 D.C. Docket No. 1:21

- cv - 00286
- KD

- C

____________________ Before W ILLIA M P RYOR , Chief Judge, A BUDU , and E D C ARNES , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Following our careful review of the record , the parties ’briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the judgment of the d istrict c ourt . The language of the insurance policies in this case required KVK

- Tech , Inc. (“KVK

- Tech”) , an opioid manufacturer, to provide notice to Navigators Specialty Insu rance Company (“Navigators”) , an excess insurance carrier, when a covered claim was “first made” against it during the policy period or “as soon as practicable.” It is undisputed that KVK

- Tech had notice of the first

- made opioid lawsuit against it on or b efore August 31 , 2017

— while the 2017

- 18 Navigators policy was in effect
. As the district court correctly found, KVK

- Tech had thirty days from the expiration of the 2017
- 18 Navigators policy, i.e. , until September 20, 2018, to provide notice of that claim against it to Navigators. It is also undisputed that KVK

- Tech notified other excess carriers of other opioid lawsuits that were pending against it on June 25, 2019
. Yet KVK

- Tech failed to notify Navigators of any of the opioid lawsuits against it until January 27, 2020

— d espite having notice nearly three years earlier and notifying other excess carriers of the opioid lawsuits against it on June 25, 2019
. In sum, KVK

- Tech failed to provide timely notice USCA11 Case: 22-10245 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023 Page: 2 of 322
- 10245 Opinion of the Court 3 to Navigators
. Th erefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the d istrict c ourt . USCA11 Case: 22-10245 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023 Page: 3 of 3