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

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Donna Lehmann, asTreasurer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C. (the “Company”),certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(B)  the information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Dated: November14, 2006

 
|        | /s/ Donna Lehmann                                       |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Donna Lehmann                                           |
|   | Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting  Officer) |

 

----
Michael Nelson CURRIER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 160102

Supreme Court of Virginia.

December 8, 2016

In this case, we awarded appellant an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the trial court did not err in its denial of the appellant's motion to set aside the jury verdict on the basis of collateral estoppel. *Currier v. Commonwealth* , 65 Va.App. 605, 609-14, 779 S.E.2d 834, 836-38 (2015).

We have considered the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the judgment.

This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and to the Circuit Court of Albemarle County and shall be published in the Virginia Reports.

Justice McCullough took no part in the consideration of this case.
# C_2009193EN.01001802.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — ThyssenKrupp Stainless v Commission

(Case T-24/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Stainless steel flat products - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after expiry of the ECSC Treaty, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Alloy surcharge - Powers of the Commission - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Res judicata - Rights of the defence - Access to the file - Limitation period - Principle of non bis in idem - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

2009/C 193/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, R. Sauer and O. Weber, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, in whole or in part, of the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] (Case No COMP/F/39.234 — Alloy surcharge — readoption) and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the fine imposed on ThyssenKrupp Stainless by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ThyssenKrupp Stainless AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
EXHIBIT 21


<PAGE>



                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Parent

TF Financial Corporation


                                               Percentage    Jurisdiction of
Subsidiaries                                      Owned      Incorporation
------------                                   -----------  ----------------

Third Federal Savings Bank (a)                    100%         United States

TF Investments Corporation (a)                    100%         Delaware

Teragon Financial Corporation (a)                 100%         Pennsylvania

Penns Trail Development Corporation (a)           100%         Delaware

Third Delaware Corporation (a)(b)                 100%         Delaware

-------------------------
(a)  The  operations  of  this  subsidiary  are  included  in  the  consolidated
     financial  statements  contained in the 2000 Annual Report to  Stockholders
     incorporated herein by reference.

(b)  Third Delaware  Corporation  is a wholly-owned  subsidiary of Third Federal
     Savings Bank.
STATE of North Carolina v. Fitzgerald Jerod ROBINSON.

No. COA15-1312.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Betty P. LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. Allen Toby HEDGEPETH, et al., Defendant.

No. COA15-914

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 21, 2017

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4197 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4197

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the period of certain 
 authority with respect to judicial review of Merit Systems Protection 
  Board decisions relating to whistleblowers, and for other purposes.

    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 ``All Circuit Review Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD DECISIONS 
              RELATING TO WHISTLEBLOWERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7703(b)(1)(B) of title 5, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``5-year''.
    (b) Director Review.--Section 7703(d)(2) of such title is amended 
by striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``5-year''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4197 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the period 

of certain authority with respect to judicial review of 

Merit Systems Protection Board decisions relating to 

whistleblowers, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4197 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘All Circuit Review Ex3 tension Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

5 BOARD DECISIONS RELATING TO WHISTLE6 BLOWERS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7703(b)(1)(B) of title 5, 

8 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘2-year’’ and 

9 inserting ‘‘5-year’’. 

10 (b) DIRECTOR REVIEW.—Section 7703(d)(2) of such 

11 title is amended by striking ‘‘2-year’’ and inserting ‘‘5- 

12 year’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4197 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the 

purposes. decisions relating to whistleblowers, and for other cial review of Merit Systems Protection Board period of certain authority with respect to judi-
# C_2009141EN.01001502.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland)) — Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

(Case C-544/07) (1)

1

(Article 18 EC - Income tax legislation - Reduction of income tax by the amount of health insurance contributions paid in the Member State of taxation - Refusal of reduction by the amount of contributions paid in other Member States)

2009/C 141/24

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uwe Rüffler

Applicant:

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzi Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC and of Article 39(1) and (2) EC — National legislation on income tax limiting the right to deduct health insurance contributions from that tax to contributions paid solely in the Member State concerned

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(1) EC precludes legislation of a Member State which makes the granting of a right to a reduction of income tax by the amount of health insurance contributions paid conditional on payment of those contributions in that Member State on the basis of national law and results in the refusal to grant such a tax advantage where the contributions liable to be deducted from the amount of income tax due in that Member State have been paid under the compulsory health insurance scheme of another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
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 Triangle Petroleum Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shaun
Toker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and 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.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Triangle Petroleum
Corporation and will be retained by Triangle Petroleum Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





Date:  December
      11, 2008
                    By:
                    /s/ SHAUN TOKERShaun
      TokerChief
      Financial
Officer
CORWIN v. BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO PLC, et al.

56PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

*616Alan W. Duncan, Attorney at Law, Stephen M. Russell, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jason M. Leviton, Attorney at Law, Joel A. Fleming, Attorney at Law, for Corwin, Robert (Dr.), et al.

Michael L. Robinson, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, H. Brent Helms, Attorney at Law, Gary A. Bornstein, Attorney at Law, for British American Tobacco PLC.

Ronald R. Davis, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, W. Andrew Copenhaver, Attorney at Law, James A. Dean, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Robert C. Micheletto, Attorney at Law, Thomas E. Lynch, Attorney at Law, Andrew S. Kleinfeld, Attorney at Law, for Reynolds American, Inc., et al.

James P. McLoughlin, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Mark A. Nebrig, Attorney at Law, Jonathan M. Watkins, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Karen Seymour, Attorney at Law, Frank Schall, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Jobin, Luc, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of May 2017 by W. Andrew Copenhaver for Leave to Withdraw:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  I, Paul Tidwell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Innocap, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.    Date: December 19, 2011  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.7

 

TENTH AMENDMENT OF LEASE

 

This TENTH AMENDMENT OF LEASE made this 11th day of April, 2014 by and between E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY (hereinafter “LANDLORD”) and INCYTE CORPORATION (hereinafter “TENANT”).

 

W I T N E S S E T H:

 

WHEREAS, LANDLORD and TENANT entered into a Sublease dated June 16, 2003 as amended October 28, 2003 by the First Amendment of Sublease, the Second Amendment of Sublease dated March 2, 2005, the Third Amendment of Lease dated December 15, 2006, the extension letter to the Lease dated September 25, 2007, the Fourth Amendment of Lease dated December 1, 2007, the Fifth Amendment of Lease dated December 5, 2008, and the Sixth Amendment of Lease dated December 15, 2009, the Seventh Amendment of Lease dated November 1, 2010, the Eighth Amendment of Lease dated April 16, 2010, and the Ninth Amendment of Lease dated July 16, 2013 (the Sublease and Lease as amended are hereby referred to as the “LEASE”);

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the LEASE to extend the Lease term;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

(1)           The Term of the LEASE will be extended for an additional six (6) month period (the “LEASE EXTENSION”) commencing at midnight June 30, 2014 and expiring at midnight on December 31, 2014 (the “EXPIRATION DATE”).

 











 

(2)           All other terms and conditions of the LEASE, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this TENTH AMENDMENT OF LEASE on the day and year above-written.

 

	
WITNESS:
    	
E.   I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Christopher J. Heck
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Manager—Corporate   Real Estate and
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Strategic   Planning
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
WITNESS:
    	
INCYTE   CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Bonnie Croce
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Paula J. Swain
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Executive   Vice President, Human Resources
    
						


 

2
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55445-55446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18822]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Notice of Meeting of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on 
Small and Minority Business (ITAC-11)

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of a partially opened meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Small and Minority 
Business (ITAC-11) will hold a meeting on Monday, October 3, 2005, from 
9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting will be opened to the public from 9 a.m. 
to 12 p.m. and closed to the public from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for October 3, 2005, unless otherwise 
notified.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Marriott Greensboro High 
Point--Magnolia Inn, located at One Marriott Drive, Greensboro, North 
Carolina 27409 (336) 852-6450.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Tomasetti, DFO for ITAC-11 at 
(202) 482-3487, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the opened portion of the meeting the 
following agenda items will be considered.
    <bullet> North Carolina Trade Policy Agenda Update by Senator Kay 
Hagan

[[Page 55446]]

    <bullet> Overview of the Greensboro Triad Foreign Trade Zone 
Operations
    <bullet> Overview of Greensboro Chamber of Commerce, Small Business 
Development Program, activities and Fiscal Year 2006 Trade Agenda
    <bullet> U.S. Commercial Service Programs and Services to Assist 
Small and Medium-Sized Business
    <bullet> Briefing on Updated Functions of ``Notify U.S.'' Service
    <bullet> Textile Industry Update and Opportunities for North 
Carolina Manufacturers

Christina R. Sevilla,
Acting Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intergovernmental 
Affairs and Public Liaison.
[FR Doc. 05-18822 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-W5-P
State of North Carolina v. Quenton Lee Dick

No. COA15-1400

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL AND RESENTENCING.
# C_2008037EN.01001801.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/18

---

Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by Imagination Technologies Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2007 in Case T-461/04: Imagination Technologies Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-542/07 P)

(2008/C 37/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Imagination Technologies Ltd (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

| — | make an order for costs of and associated with this appeal before the Court of Justice and its appeal before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order for costs of and associated with this appeal before the Court of Justice and its appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the Community trade mark application No 2396075 for the word mark PURE DIGITAL (the ‘Application’) does not offend against either Article 7(1)(b) or 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as it has acquired a distinctive character since the Application was filed. It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in its analysis of the relevant law; in particular, it erred when it failed to hold that use after the filing date was relevant when considering the issue of acquired distinctiveness.

Accordingly, the Court of First Instance was wrong to dismiss the appeal before it. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance ought to be allowed and its Judgment set aside. The Appellant also seeks its costs in these appeal proceedings and in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

---