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



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 September 30, 2002 as
originally filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 13, 2002 and as amended by amendment No. 1 on Form
10-Q/A as filed on March 31, 2003 and amendment No. 2 on Form
10-Q/A as filed on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, David Mahoney, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company 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 represents, in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                             
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2003 |  | /s/ David C. MahoneyDavid C. Mahoney
Chief Executive Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Applix, Inc. and will be
retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
In the MATTER OF the Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by Holly B. RANKIN and Darrin L. Rankin (Present Record Owner(s): Mozijah Bailey and Wendy Carolina Lopez) and (Darrin L. Rankin, as To a Life Estate Only) in the Original Amount of $307,920.00 Dated October 4, 2006, Recorded in Book 21173, Page 276, Mecklenburg County Registry

Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., Substitute Trustee

No. 192P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Erin Rozzelle, Attorney at Law, for Bailey, Mozijah.

Otha Townsend, Attorney at Law, for Substitute Trustee Services, Inc.

Jeffrey A. Bunda, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of June 2017 by Respondent (Mozijah Bailey) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Respondent (Mozijah Bailey) on the 15th of June 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of June 2017 by Respondent (Mozijah Bailey) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
No. 85-949.

#### St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, New York *v.*Brock, Secretary of Labor.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2008051EN.01006102.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/61

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 December 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-20/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Repayment of medical expenses - Express rejection of the application)

(2008/C 51/114)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, application for annulment of a number of Commission decisions refusing to grant the applicant 100 % reimbursement of his medical expenses and, second, a claim for damages

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The Civil Service Tribunal declines jurisdiction in Case F-20/07 Marcuccio v Commission in order that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities may hear and determine that case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Civil Service Tribunal declines jurisdiction in Case F-20/07 Marcuccio v Commission in order that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities may hear and determine that case.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 19.

1

---
MANAGEMENT'S REPORT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE
   RELATIVE TO THE SERVICING OF CONSUMER REVOLVING CREDIT CARD RECEIVABLES
                            
          
   The management of the Bank is responsible for establishing and
   maintaining the internal control structure.  In fulfilling this
   responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
   required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
   control procedures.  The objectives of an internal control
   structure are to provide management with reasonable, but not
   absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from
   unauthorized use or disposition, and that transactions are
   executed in accordance with management's authorization and
   recorded properly to permit the preparation of financial
   statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
   principles.
          
   We have performed an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
   Bank's internal control structure based on the criteria
   established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued
   by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
   Commission ("COSO") relative to the servicing of consumer
   revolving credit card receivables owned by Chevy Chase Master
   Credit Card Trust I Series 1994-1, 1994-2, 1994-3, 1994-4, 
   1994-5, 1994-6, 1994-7, 1995-1, 1997-1 and Chevy Chase Master 
   Credit Card Trust II Series 1995-A, 1995-B, 1995-C, 1995-D,
   1996-A, 1996-B and 1996-C (collectively referred to as the
   "Trusts" herein) as of September 30, 1997, and we have
   determined that the Bank maintained an effective internal
   control structure over financial reporting relative to the
   servicing of consumer revolving credit card receivables owned
   by the Bank's Trusts as of September 30, 1997.
          
   However, there are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of
   any internal control structure, including the possibility of human
   error and the circumvention or overriding of controls. 
   Accordingly, even an effective internal control structure can
   provide only reasonable assurance with respect to reliability of
   financial statements and safeguarding and management of
   assets.  Furthermore, the effectiveness of any internal control
   structure can change with changes in circumstances.
          
          
  
                                                                         
  Robert M. Hurley                              Stephen R. Halpin, Jr.
  Senior Vice President                         Executive Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
          
          
                                                                      
  George P. Clancy                                  
  Executive Vice President                          
                                                       
          
          November 18, 1997                                      CCINTCON.LTR
COURTNEY NC LLC v. BALDWIN

219P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2017

Monette Baldwin, for Baldwin, Monette.

A. Bartlett White, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Stephanie D'Atri, Attorney at Law, for Courtney NC, LLC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of October 2017 by Defendant to Sanction Plaintiff and their Attorneys for Fraud Upon the Court and Abuse of Process:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of October 2017."

Beasley, J. and Morgan, J. recused
SERENITY COUNSELING and Resource Center, Inc., Plaintiff, v. CARDINAL INNOVATIONS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, Defendant.

No. COA17-439

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 7, 2017

AFFIRMED.
In the MATTER OF: T.R.K.

No. COA17-303

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

Respondent appeals from an involuntary commitment order. On appeal, Respondent argues the trial court erred in allowing her to represent herself at the involuntary commitment hearing without complying with the applicable statutes and Rules of the Office of Indigent Defense Services. We agree and vacate and remand the order for further proceedings.

VACATED. REMANDED.
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 26 May 2004         

relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty against The Topps Company Inc, Topps Europe Limited, Topps International Limited, Topps UK Limited and Topps Italia SRL

(Case No COMP/C-3/37.980 — Souris-Topps)

(notified under document number C(2004) 1910)

(Only the English text is authentic)

(2006/895/EC)

On 26 May 2004, the Commission adopted a decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. In accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of Regulation No 1/2003(1), the Commission herewith publishes the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, having regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business interests. A non-confidential version of the full text of the decision can be found in the authentic language of the case and in the Commission's working languages at DG COMP's website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html.

I:   SUMMARY OF THE INFRINGEMENT

Addressees, Nature and Duration of the Infringement

Products Concerned and Behaviour of Topps

II:   FINE

Basic Amount

Aggravating and Attenuating Circumstances

The Final Amount Imposed

----

(1)OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 411/2004 (OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 1).

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

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.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 24, 2012

h0917 

# Order

September 24, 2012

144900

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144900

COA: 306246

Berrien CC: 2007

- 400263

- FH

ROOSEVELT LASHAWN WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 13, 2012

order of the Co urt of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56768-56769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19288]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritine Administration

[Docket No: MARAD 2005-22519]


Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this Notice is to make available for public 
review and comment the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the 
Port of Anchorage, Cherry Hill Gravel Extraction Project (Project). The 
DEA analyzes the potential impacts on the natural and manmade 
environment associated with gravel extraction from Elmendorf Air Force 
Base to be used as fill for the Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion.

DATES: Comments on this DEA must be received by October 28, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel E. Yuska, Jr., Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Activities, U.S. 
Maritime Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; 
telephone (202) 366-0714, fax (202) 366-6988.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments may be submitted by mail to the 
Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. 
Written comments should refer to docket number MARAD 2005--22519. All 
comments will become part of this docket and will be available for 
inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
e.t., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic 
version of this document and all documents entered into this docket are 
available at http://dms.dot.gov. No comments will be accepted after 
October 28, 2005. In addition, copies of the DEA are

[[Page 56769]]

available for public viewing on the Port of Anchorage Web site 
(www.portofanchorage.org) or at the Loussac Library in Anchorage.

(Authority: 49 CFR 1.66)

    By order of the Maritime Administrator.
    Dated: September 22, 2005.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-19288 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Milton Calonie MORRIS

No. COA17-121

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

AFFIRMED. REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERRORS.
---

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



I, John Curtis, Chief Executive Officer of Greenlite Ventures
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                         



| | By:    | /s/
      John Curtis                
| | ------ | -------------------------------------
| |        |                                      
| | Name:  | JOHN CURTIS                          
| |        |                                      
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and President
| |        |                                      
| | Date:  | August 17, 2007                      





A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              MRO SOFTWARE, INC.
                             List of Subsidiaries
                             --------------------


                                      Jurisdiction of
Name of Subsidiary                    Incorporation                 Ownership
------------------                    -------------                 ---------

MRO International
Software, Inc.                        Delaware                         (1)
MRO Security Corporation              Massachusetts                    (1)
MRO International
Holdings, Inc.                        Delaware                         (2)
PSDI Export, Inc.                     Barbados                         (1)
MRO Software, UK Limited              United Kingdom                   (2)
MRO Software (Canada) Limited         Canada                           (2)
MRO Software S.A.R.L.                 France                           (2)
MRO Software Australia Pty.
Limited                               Australia                        (2)
MRO Software GmbH                     Germany                          (2)
PSDI Europe Ltd.                      United Kingdom                   (2)
PSDI Espana S.A.                      Spain                            (2)
MRO Software NV                       Netherlands                      (2)
MRO Software AB                       Sweden                           (2)
MRO Software Japan K.K.               Japan                            (2)
MRO Software (Thailand) Limited       Thailand                         (2)
MRO Software India Private Limited    India                            (2)
MRO Software do Brasil Ltda.          Brazil                           (3)
MRO Software Hong Kong Ltd.           Hong Kong                        (2)
MRO Software Mexico S.A. de C.V.      Mexico                           (3)
MRO Software (Shanghai) Co. Ltd       China                            (1)
MRO Software Italia s.r.l.            Italy                          (1 & 2)
MRO.com, Inc.                         Delaware                         (1)
MRO.com, Limited                      United Kingdom                   (4)
MRO.com, Limited                      Canada                           (4)
MRO.com Pty Limited                   Australia                        (4)
MRO.com (Asia) Limited                Hong Kong                        (4)
INTERMAT, Inc.                        Delaware                         (1)


(1)      All of the outstanding capital stock is owned by MRO Software, Inc.

(2)      All of the outstanding capital stock (other than certain qualifying
         shares required in the jurisdiction of organization and representing
         from 0% to 2% of the outstanding capital stock), is owned by MRO
         International Software, Inc.

(3)      4,950 shares are owned by MRO International Software, Inc. and 50
         shares are owned by MRO International Holdings, Inc.

(4)      All outstanding capital stock is owned by MRO.com, Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 66
##### 



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
    /s/ Charles A. CasalinovaCharles A. CasalinovaChief Financial OfficerAugust 8, 2005
 The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange
Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to
be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4200 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4200

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to prevent duplicative 
     regulation of advisers of small business investment companies.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``SBIC Advisers Relief Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS.

    Section 203(l) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 
80b-3(l)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``No investment adviser'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) In general.--No investment adviser''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Advisers of sbics.--For purposes of this subsection, 
        a venture capital fund includes an entity described in 
        subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b)(7) (other than 
        an entity that has elected to be regulated or is regulated as a 
        business development company pursuant to section 54 of the 
        Investment Company Act of 1940).''.

SEC. 3. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND PRIVATE FUNDS.

    Section 203(m) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 
80b-3(m)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Advisers of sbics.--For purposes of this subsection, 
        the assets under management of a private fund that is an entity 
        described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b)(7) 
        (other than an entity that has elected to be regulated or is 
        regulated as a business development company pursuant to section 
        54 of the Investment Company Act of 1940) shall be excluded 
        from the limit set forth in paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW.

    Section 203A(b)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 
U.S.C. 80b-3a(b)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) that is not registered under section 203 
                because that person is exempt from registration as 
                provided in subsection (b)(7) of such section, or is a 
                supervised person of such person.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4200

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to prevent duplicative 
     regulation of advisers of small business investment companies.
```