alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.4

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

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG for
the annual period ended March 31, 2008, I, Paul Thomason, Chief Financial Officer of 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 the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/PAUL THOMASONPaul ThomasonChief Financial
Officer |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | 

Date: July 29, 2008

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

---



QuickLinks
177 La. 31

#### BELLACI v. DARDER.

No. 31750.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1933.

Loys Charbonnet and Joseph M’Caleb, both of New Orleans, for appellant. ■

Deynoodt & De la Vergne, of New Orleans, for appellee Angelina Darder Bellaci.

ROGERS, Justice.

Plaintiff sued his wife for a divorce on statutory grounds. The court below rejected his demand, and he appealed from the judgment. Appellant has moved to dismiss his appeal on the ground that he did not desire to further prosecute it. As the appellee has not consented to such dismissal, the motion cannot be granted. Code Prac. art. 901. On the merits, the judgment appears to us to be correct.

Por the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FRANK ADAMS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 325 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0948V

UNPUBLISHED

GAVIN BEAGLEY,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: November 10, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria 

acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;

Brachial Neuritis

David Charles Richards, Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for Petitioner.

Wei Kit Tai, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On June 28, 2019, Gavin Beagley filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered brachial neuritis as a result of a tetanusdiphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine that was administered to him on July 1, 

2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office 

of Special Masters.

On November 8, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 

1. Specifically, Respondent “[has] reviewed the facts of this case and concluded that 

[P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for brachial neuritis.” Id. at 8. Respondent 

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

further agrees that “[Petitioner’s] brachial neuritis and its sequela, including pain, hand

numbness and weakness, persisted for greater than six months.” Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Liquidating Trust's statement of net assets in liquidation at March 31,
2000 and the Liquidating Trust's statement of changes in net assets in
liquidation for the three months ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                    1,000

<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                        122,352
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    0
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                122,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          36,781
<BONDS>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     85,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  122,352
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                1,926
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  604
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (3,005)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (3,005)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (3,005)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   (.06)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1273

BRIAN DAVISON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC.; YOUTUBE, LLC; TWITTER, INC.; LOUDOUN COUNTY 

SCHOOL BOARD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01125-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: July 31, 2019 Decided: August 7, 2019

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Davison, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Winn Allen, Craig Primis, KIRKLAND & 

ELLIS, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Thomas G. Hentoff, John Edward Schmidtlein, 

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Ariel Brynne Glickman, John 

Kuropatkin Roche, PERKINS COIE LLP, Washington, D.C.; Ara Loris Tramblian, 

BANCROFT, MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian Davison appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm. Davison v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01125-AJT-TCB (E.D. 

Va. Feb. 26, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MALIK SAMUELS

PETITION OF: TODD MOSSER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 146 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of March , 2020

, in consideration of the Application to

Withdraw as Counsel , this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County for that court to determine whether Malik Samuel’s present counsel

should be permitted to withdraw.

The Court of Common Pleas of Phila delphia County is DIRECTED to enter its

order regarding this remand within 60 days and to promptly notify this Court of its

determination.
#### EQUITABLE FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. v. HOLLAND.

No. 20149.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 1, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1954.

Bienvenu & Culver and H. F. Foster, III, for appellant.

Mark W. Malloy, for appellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

This is a companion suit to Holland v. Gallaher, La.App., 70 So.2d 154. In that case we referred to this and discussed the facts' from which both of these suits resulted. .

In the case which we are now considering, Equitable Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Adolph Holland, Sr., the collision insurer of Gallaher shows that it had paid to Gallaher the amount necessary to repair the damage to his car and had secured a subrogation to all of his rights. It brought this suit against Holland alleging that the accident resulted from the negligence of young Holland. For the reasons given in that case we have concluded that the cause of the accident was negligence on the part of Adolph Holland, Jr.

Accordingly, plaintiff, Equitable Fire and Marine Insurance Company, is entitled to recover "from Adolph Holland, Sr., the amount it paid to John H. Gallaher.

The judgment appealed from is annulled, avoided and reversed, and there is now judgment in favor of the Equitable Fire and Marine Insurance Company and against Adolph Holland, Sr., in the full sum of $228.99, with interest from judicial demand, until paid, and for all costs.

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029300
<NAME> CFC SERVICES CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                       996
<INVENTORY>                                     48,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,168
<PP&E>                                          89,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 348,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   348,816
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,126
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,829)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,279)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0)
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
#### JASON LEE LOTT, Petitioner, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent.

No. 05-617.

Ordered September 26, 2006.

Withdrawn October 27, 2006

2006 MT 240.

333 Mont. 531.

ORDER

Upon reconsideration of the Opinion and Order issued by the Court in this matter on September 26, 2006,

IT IS ORDERED that the Opinion and Order issued in this matter on September 26, 2006, is hereby withdrawn and a new Opinion and Order will be issued by the Court.

The Clerk is directed to mail a true copy of this order to counsel of record for the respective parties.

DATED this 27th day of October, 2006.

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ JOHN WARNER

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

/S/BRIAN MORRIS

/S/JAMES C. NELSON

/S/JIM RICE
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51038-51039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20164]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6337]


In the Matter of the Designation of: Joseph Kony as a Specially 
Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 
13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Joseph Kony has 
committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism 
that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, 
foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.


[[Page 51039]]


    Dated: August 22, 2008.
Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E8-20164 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1795

ZEBIBA KEBEDE SEID, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-898-783) Submitted: February 15, 2006 Decided: March 7, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oti W. Nwosu, THE LAW OFFICE OF OTI W. NWOSU, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Michele S. Greif, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Insofar as Seid seeks to challenge the Board’s order of April 21, 2005, which denied her petition to reopen immigration proceedings, we are without jurisdiction because Seid failed to file a petition for review of that order within the thirty-day time period. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000). This time period is “jurisdictional in nature” and is not tolled by filing a motion to reconsider with the Board. Stone v. INS , 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Zebiba Kebede Seid, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider its previous order, which denied her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. * A denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005); Jean v. Gonzales , F.3d , , 2006 WL 205041, at *5 (4th Cir. Jan. 27, 2006). The Board ruled that Seid did not warrant the exercise of favorable discretion because she did not assert an error in fact or law in its decision denying reopening of her immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Seid , No. A95-898-783 (B.I.A. June 30, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 CECILE FOY GSANGER

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

June 25, 2015

Hon. Glenn W. Devino

Assistant District Attorney

100 N. Closner, 4th Floor

Edinburg, TX 78539

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Oscar Rene Flores

Attorney at Law

1308 South 10th Ave.

Edinburg, TX 78539

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-13-00229-CR

Tr.Ct.No. CR-2156-12-D

Style: THE STATE OF TEXAS v. LORENZO REYES JR.

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch

Enc.

cc: 206th District Court (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Laura Hinojosa, Hidalgo County District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. J. Rolando Olvera Jr., Presiding Judge, Fifth Administrative Judicial Region

(DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
#### Mrs. Lou PATTERSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT et al., Defendants-Appellees, Thomas B. CARPENTER et al., Interveners-Appellees. *

No. 5250.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 2, 1936.

Harry V. Booth and Wm. H. Cook, both of Shreveport, for appellants.

Isaac Abramson, Cook, Cook & Egan, Jos. H. Jackson, and Richard H. Switzer, all of Shreveport, for appelless.

*

Rehearing denied June 26, 1936.

DREW, Judge.

This is a companion suit to No. 5251, styled Mrs. Heasa M. Collett v. City of Shreveport et al., A T. Johnson, Intervener, 168 So. 3.46, decided by us this day and involving the same questions. We do therefore, for the reasons assigned in suit No. 5251, affirm the judgment of the lower court, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and notes included in this Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,968
<SECURITIES>                                    19,617
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,149
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,619
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,883
<PP&E>                                         275,175
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 399,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,038
<BONDS>                                        233,402
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        99,038
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   399,509
<SALES>                                        114,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,475
<CGS>                                           97,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,038
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (9)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,047
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,047
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59


</TABLE>