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


     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Dazzling Investments,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Amy Hadley, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule
15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

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

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




Dated: May 31, 2005                       By: /s/ AMY HADLEY
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Amy Hadley
                                          Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                          and Director



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DAZZLING INVESTMENTS, INC., AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY DAZZLING INVESTMENTS, INC., AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANYS UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                         33,555,842
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  22,734,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                   766,671
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               63,438,803
<PP&E>                                         1,634,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,450,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 68,140,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          26,522,883
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       115,922
<OTHER-SE>                                     41,122,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   68,140,278
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               25,592,252
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                16,671,906
<INCOME-TAX>                                   7,169,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            9,502,906
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9,502,906
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.78




</TABLE>
#### KENNETH WAYNE LONG, by his next friend, VONNIE LONG v. PAULINE GASKINS.

(Filed 13 December, 1961.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *McKinnon, J.,*May Term 1961 of Brunswick..

This is a civil action to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff Kenneth Wayne Long when struck by an automobile operated by the defendant on the State highway leading from Ash to Longwood in Brunswick County. This is a paved highway, 18 feet wide. The plaintiff, six years of age, and his sister, Irma Long, ten years of age, were walking in a southerly direction on the right shoulder of the highway going towards their home, about 2:00 p.m. on 28 February 1960. Another sister of plaintiff, Marcia Long, nine years of age, and a brother, Clint Long, four years of age, were walking along the left shoulder of the highway on the opposite side of the road at the above time.

It was stipulated that there was a path on the right shoulder of the road about 18 inches from the hard surface and that the shoulder was six feet wide. Irma Long testified that she was walking along this path and that Kenneth was behind her "in this path which was pretty wide.”

*109An automobile approached from the direction in which the children were walking. The defendant, driving a 1951 Studebaker automobile, traveling in the same direction in which the four children were walking, saw the children approximately 200 yards before she reached the point where they were walking on the shoulder of the highway. The evidence tends to show that the defendant met and passed the automobile proceeding from the opposite direction; that some distance before overtaking the plaintiff and the other children the defendant was traveling about 40 to 45 miles per hour; that when she saw the children she applied her brakes and slowed down to 20 or 25 miles an hour and blew her horn; that when the defendant came to within 20 feet of plaintiff, he darted out in front of her; that she pulled her car to the left and was about the center of the highway when the plaintiff was struck. The right parking light was broken by the contact with the child. The defendant stopped her car on the right side of the highway about 25 or 30 feet from where the plaintiff was lying. After the accident the child was lying about two or three feet from the edge of the pavement in the right lane of the highway. Irma and Marcia Long testified that if the defendant blew her horn they did not hear it.

The case was submitted to the jury on appropriate issues. The issue as to the defendant’s negligence was answered in her favor. The plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*Herring, Walton & Parker for plaintiff appellant.*

*Edward L. Williamson for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

A careful examination of the plaintiff’s exceptions and assignments of error leads us to the conclusion that the plaintiff has had a fair trial, free from any error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

The verdict of the jury and the judgment entered below will be upheld.

No error.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TIMOTHY WILLSON and KIMBERLY WILLSON,

Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-552

[November 22, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

312013CA001615.

Bruce Botsford of Bruce Botsford, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Adam Topel of Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
snx-ex101_429.htm



 

EXHIBIT 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
SYNNEX CORPORATION
2020 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

In accordance with Section 21(b) of the SYNNEX Corporation 2020 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the effective date of the Plan:


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 7(l) is hereby amended in its entirety as follows:





	
 
	
“7(l)
	
Buyout Provisions.




Except with respect to an Option whose Exercise Price exceeds the Fair Market Value of the Shares subject to the Option, the Committee may at any time (a) offer to buy out for a payment in cash or cash equivalents an Option previously granted or (b) authorize an Optionee to elect to cash out an Option previously granted, in either case at such time and based upon such terms and conditions as the Committee shall establish.”


	
 
	
2.
	
Section 9(h) is hereby amended in its entirety as follows:





	
 
	
“9(h)
	
Buyout Provisions.




Except with respect to a SAR whose Exercise Price exceeds the Fair Market Value of the Shares subject to the SAR, the Committee may at any time (a) offer to buy out for a payment in cash or cash equivalents a SAR previously granted or (b) authorize an Optionee to elect to cash out a SAR previously granted, in either case at such time and based upon such terms and conditions as the Committee shall establish.”

[The remainder of this page left intentionally blank.]






 

To record the amendment of the Plan, SYNNEX Corporation has executed this document this 5th day of March, 2020.


	

	
SYNNEX CORPORATION
	
 





	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ Simon Y. Leung





	
 
	
Title:  
	
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

3:10cv91-RV/EMT - STATE OF FLORIDA, et al. vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, et

al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.

vs

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.

Case No.3:10cv91-RV/EMT

ORDER

Your document, NOTICE OF APPEAL (PRO-SE) BY ROBERT P. SMITH, JR., was

referred to the undersigned with the following deficiencies:

You are not a party to this action. Your Motion to Intervene (doc. 23) was

denied on April 23, 2010 by Order of this Court (doc. 37). There is no

legal basis for filing an appeal. 

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall return the document to the filing

party, along with the $455 filing fee.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2011.

 /s Roger Vinson

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 62663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5517]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Review of Neuroimmunology Program 
Project.
    Date: November 26, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, 3146, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Kenneth E. Santora, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, NIH/NIAID/DHHS, Room 3146, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2605, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8b3abeae9eeb198b6b1b0f6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9d2ca8b888fd0f9d7d0d197ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 29, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5517 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Melinda Flint

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00026

- CV

Trial court case number: 2015

- 54382

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris County

Relator, Melinda Flint

, has filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and in the Alternative, Petition for Writ of Mandamus” challenging the trial court’ s order contempt and commitment order. The Court requests that real party in interest file a limited response addressing the following issues asserted in the petition:

Issue 1b . The Judgment of contempt and the commitment order pertaining to Violation No. 1 are void because Respondent, the Honorable Sheri Y. Dean, abused

her discretion when she found relator in c ontempt for two allegedly contemptuous acts when only one act allegedly occurred.

Issue 2b . The Judgment of contempt and the commitment order pertaining to

Violation No. 3 are void because Respondent, the Honorable Sheri Y. Dean, abused

her discretion when she found relator in contempt for two allegedly contemptuous acts when only one act allegedly occurred.

Issue 3a

. The judgment of contempt and the commitment order pertaining to Violation No. 5 are void because they grant relief which was not plead [sic] in the motion for contempt.

Issue 4a

. The judgment of contempt and the commitment order pertaining to

Violation No. 6 are void because they grant relief which was not plead [sic] in the motion for contempt.

Issue 5 b. The judgment of contempt and the commitment order pertaining to

Violation No. 7 are void because they grant relief which was not plead [sic] in the motion for contempt.

The response shall be due within 20 days of this order

.
It is so ORDERED.Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown Acting individually

Date: January 30, 2018
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:01cr61-03/RV

 

STEVEN BURDEN

__________________________________/

ORDER REDUCING SENTENCE

Currently pending is the Government’s motion for a reduction of the defendant's

sentence under Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Doc. 125) The

Government has certified defendant Burden’s subsequent substantial assistance in the

investigation of prosecution of other individuals, so that a reduction of sentence under

Rule 35(b) is warranted.

Upon consideration, I find that the grounds set out in the Government's motion

do constitute substantial assistance within the meaning of Rule 35(b), and that the

Government's motion should be, and is hereby, GRANTED. Accordingly, defendant

Burden’s sentence and judgment entered herein on November 16, 2001, is hereby

amended and his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from a term of two hundred

forty (240) months with 10 years of supervised release to a term of one hundred

twenty (120) months and five years of supervised release. In all other respects, the

defendant's judgment of November 16, 2001 (doc. 97), remains in full force and

effect.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior U.S. District Judge

Case 3:01-cr-00061-RV Document 126 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. DICKERSON

No. 170 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 710.

Application by defendant for further review denied 17 August 1981.
cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge

Marina M. Calove Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

2
#### MAINES v. CITY OF GREENSBORO

No. 44.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 553.

Motion of defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question denied 8 January 1980.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                              [LETTERHEAD OF KNOLOGY, INC.]

                                      March 27, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.
20549-1004

      RE:   Knology, Inc.
            Annual Report on Form 10-K
            Financial Statements Audited by Arthur Andersen LLP

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      Knology, Inc. (the "Company") has included in its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 (the "Annual Report"), consolidated
financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"), and an
accountant's report manually signed by Andersen after March 14, 2002. This
letter is being filed as an exhibit to the Annual Report pursuant to Temporary
Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X.

      In connection with issuing its report on the Company's audited financial
statements, Andersen has represented to the Company that:

      (1)   The audit of the Company's financial statements (the "Audit") was
            subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting
            and auditing practice to provide a reasonable assurance that the
            engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards.

      (2)   There was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on
            the Audit.

      (3)   The national office of Andersen was available for consultation on
            the Audit.

      (4)   Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen
            was not relevant to the Audit.

                                       Sincerely,


                                       /s/ Robert K. Mills

                                       Robert K. Mills
                                       Chief Financial Officer, Vice President
                                       and Treasurer
# C_2015419EN.01021702.xml

| 16.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/217 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/217

---

P7_TA(2012)0439

EU-Russia Agreement on the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 November 2012 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union and the Protocol between the European Union and the Government of the Russian Federation on technical modalities pursuant to that Agreement (16775/1/2011 — C7-0515/2011 — 2011/0322(NLE))

(Consent)

(2015/C 419/48)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (16775/1/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (16775/1/2011),

| — | having regard to the draft Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union (16776/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Russian Federation relating to the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union (16776/2011),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), first subparagraph, and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0515/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), first subparagraph, and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0515/2011),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0177/2012), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0177/2012),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the Agreement and of the Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the Agreement and of the Protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Russian Federation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Russian Federation.

---
# C_2009101EN.01005501.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/55

---

SPECIFIC CALL FOR PROPOSALS — EAC/24/09

SPECIFIC CALL FOR PROPOSALS

Erasmus University Charter

Lifelong Learning Programme

2009/C 101/08

1.   OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION

OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION

The Erasmus University Charter provides the general framework for the European cooperation activities a higher education institution (HEI) may carry out within the Erasmus programme as part of the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP). The Erasmus University Charter must be awarded as a prerequisite for HEI to organise student mobility and teaching and other staff mobility, to carry out Erasmus intensive language courses and intensive programmes, and to apply for multilateral projects, networks, accompanying measures and to organise preparatory visits. Erasmus University Charter is based on the LLP Decision (1) which covers the 2007 to 2013 period. The specific objectives of the LLP are listed in Article 1.3 of the Decision.

1

2.   ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

The Erasmus University Charter applies to all Higher Education Institutions listed in Article 2.10 of the Decision.

Applicants must be established in one of the following countries:

| — | the 27 Member States of the European Union (as of 1 January 2007), |
| --- | --- |

—

the 27 Member States of the European Union (as of 1 January 2007),

| — | the EFTA-EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA-EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway,

| — | candidate countries: Turkey, Croatia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. |
| --- | --- |

—

candidate countries: Turkey, Croatia, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

3.   DEADLINE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS

DEADLINE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS

The deadline for submitting applications for the Erasmus University Charter is 30 June 2009.

4.   FULL DETAILS

FULL DETAILS

The information about the Erasmus programme — Erasmus University Charter can be found in the full text of the ‘LLP General Call for proposals 2008-2010’ and the ‘LLP Programme Guide’ (2) which can be found at the following Internet address:

2

http://ec.europa.eu/llp

Applications must be submitted on the forms provided by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency and available at the address:

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/index_en.htm

---

(1)  Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning. See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:327:0045:0068:EN:PDF

1

(2)  The deadline for submitting applications for the Erasmus University Charter is 30 June 2009.

2

---