alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.3

CERTIFICATION

I, Wilfried Vancraen,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of MATERIALISE NV (the company);
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 28, 2019



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Wilfried Vancraen  
|    |  | Wilfried Vancraen      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### George Jenkins *v.*D. D. Goodaker, et al.

Real Estate — Boundary Line — Depositions.

Depositions taken by one party in a former cause between the same parties, in which title to the same land was, involved may be read in evidence by the other party.

APPEAL PROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.

December 12, 1874.

*253
      *G. W..Duvall, for appellant.*

*P. H. Darby, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge. Cofer:

While there is uncertainty as to the true location of the appellee's lines, we' think the evidence preponderates in their favor, and certainly there is no such preponderance against them as would warrant this court in reversing the judgment of the court, which is certainly entitled to as much consideration as the verdict of a jury.

The depositions read by appellees were taken by the appellant in his own behalf, in a former suit between the same parties, in which the appellees’ title to the land now in controversy was involved, and were competent evidence. In that suit the appellees were compelled to make out title in order to recover, and as appellant disputed the title alone on the ground that their boundary did not include the land in contest, the controversy was practically the same in both cases, and while the judgment may not be an estoppel, it is evidence of a very high character against the appellant to prove that appellees’ boundary includes the land in dispute. In that case appellees had no right to an injunction, except the court was of opinion on the facts that their boundary embraced the land, and' so the judgment perpetuating the injunction was an express determination that it did embrace it.

It seems to us that the judgment was clearly right, and it is *affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8486

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER LINEBERRY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief 

District Judge. (1:02-cr-00044-jpj-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80045-jpjmfu) 

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 4, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Christopher Lineberry, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall 

Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Christopher Lineberry seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2008) motion as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or 

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This 

appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. 

Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United 

States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Accord Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on May 16, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on November 21, 

2008.∗

 Because Lineberry failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

 ∗

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988). 

2 
3 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BERNICE P. JOHNSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) CA 15-00093-CG-C 

) 

DIRT CHEAP, LLC, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

After due and proper consideration of all issues raised, and a de novo 

determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, 

the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) 

and dated November 13, 2015 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, with the 

exception as noted in Defendants’ Objection to Recommendation Report (Doc. 21). 

 The Background portion of the Report and Recommendation, sentence four 

in the first paragraph on page two of the recommendation, is corrected to read as 

follows: 

“The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants, acting through their agents 

or employees, allegedly permitted, allowed, or created the dangerous 

condition, had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, 

and failed to exercise reasonable care regarding the object’s presence in the 

aisle. (Id. at 17-18).” 

Accordingly, Defendants' Motions to Strike (Doc. 16) is DENIED as MOOT, 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and Remand (Doc. 18) is GRANTED, and this matter 

Case 1:15-cv-00093-CG-C Document 22 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 2
2

is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Clarke County, Alabama for further 

proceedings.

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00093-CG-C Document 22 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 2
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 31, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 00515

- CV

Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant s

v.

New park Resources, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

CONCURRING OPINION B Y CHIEF JUSTICE JONE S

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on July 2, 2012

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellant shall

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### A. F. Freeman *v.*A. Levi.

Landlord and Tenant.

Landlord’s lien on goods must be satisfied before general creditors. The sale of such goods does not operate as an assignment for the benefit of creditors under Act of 1856.

Landlord and Tenant.

"Where real estate under lease is not surrendered, but is left vacant, the landlord purchasing such goods may: deduct from purchase price amount of rent due for time the real estate was vacant.

APPEAL PROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

June 18, 1874.

OpinioN by

Judge Peters.:

No question is raised as to the indebtedness of Keefer to Freeman for the rent of the house in which the goods were stored; nor is it controverted that Freeman had a lien on the goods in the house, for his rent. They were fairly sold for an. adequate price, including the rent for the unexpired time the lease had to run; and as Freeman had a right to have his demand for rent satisfied out of the goods, before Levi, or any other creditor could subject them to the satisfaction of their demands, the sale of the goods by Keefer to Freeman or his agent, did not operate as an assignment to the benfit of all the creditors of Keefer under the act of 1856.

The writing, evidencing the sale of the goods to Freeman by Keefer, does not stipulate for the surrender of the possession of the house by Keefer, but it may be inferred from the evidence of Ellingewood that it was surrendered; and he says in June of the same year it was rented to another tenant; that, however, does not authorize the conclusion that Freeman was to lose the rent for the time it was unoccupied. The strong presumption is that the time the house might be vacant was considered in the negotiations for the sale, as the goods were really worth more than $101, the amount of rent then actually due. It seems to us that Freeman should have $101 out of the price of the goods, that being the sum then due, and the further sum of $93.75, the rent for the three months during the time the house was unoccupied; and the residue *2of the price for which the goods were sold should be paid to *Levi,*and Freeman pay the costs in the court below. Wherefore the judgment is *reversed*and the cause is remanded with directions to render a judgment as herein directed.

*Caldwell, Harwood, for appellant.*

*A. G. Roberts, for appellee. ■*
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 Quarterly Report of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence Fensterstock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:


(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By: /s/ Lawrence FensterstockLawrence FensterstockChief Financial Officer




May 14, 2010




This certification is being furnished to the SEC with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability of that section.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NABISCO, INC. WHICH WERE FILED WITH SEC
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000069526
<NAME> NABISCO, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      521
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,599
<PP&E>                                           5,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,713)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,608
<BONDS>                                          4,334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,246
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,127
<SALES>                                          8,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,734
<CGS>                                            4,950
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   226
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    724
<INCOME-TAX>                                       293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                431
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (26)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       405
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29551]

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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

MyVA Advisory Committee; Notice of Establishment

    As required by Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs hereby gives notice of the 
establishment of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) MyVA Advisory 
Committee. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has determined that 
establishing the Committee is both necessary and in the public 
interest.
    The Committee will advise the Secretary and the Executive Director, 
MyVA Task Force on matters affecting the MyVA initiative and VA's 
ability to:

 Rebuild Trust with Veterans and other Stakeholders
 Improve Service Delivery, Focusing on Veteran Outcomes
 Set the Course for Longer-term Excellence and Reform

The Secretary has determined that these functions cannot be performed 
by VA, an existing committee, or other through other means.
    Committee members will be appointed by the Secretary's authorized 
designee and will be drawn from various venues and organization types 
such as Veteran-focused organizations, health sciences and academic 
communities, organizational leadership and change management groups, 
State/Local/Tribal Governments, health care administrators and leaders 
of key stakeholder associations and organizations. Additionally, two 
individuals will be recommended as ex-officio members.
    Any member of the public seeking additional information should 
contact Sharon Stevens (40A1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, District of Columbia, or email at 
[email protected]; or via phone at (202) 461-6013.

    Dated: December 12, 2014.
Rebecca Schiller,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-29551 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8310-01-P
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1739 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen the disclosure 

requirements for institutions of higher education related to foreign gifts 

and contracts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2023 

Mrs. BICE (for herself, Mrs. MCCLAIN, Mr. LAMBORN, and Mr. STAUBER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen 

the disclosure requirements for institutions of higher education related to foreign gifts and contracts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparency in Col5 lege Foreign Payments Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND CONTRACTS. 

7 Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

8 U.S.C. 1011f) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1739 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘the value’’ 

2 and all that follows through ‘‘calendar year,’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (b)— 

4 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘the 

5 identity of each foreign source (whether a nat6 ural person or a legal entity), and’’ before ‘‘the 

7 aggregate dollar’’; and 

8 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, and 

9 the name of each foreign government (including 

10 the name of each specific government agency or 

11 department, if applicable)’’ before the period; 

12 and 

13 (3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (c)— 

14 (A) by inserting ‘‘the identity of the for15 eign source,’’ before ‘‘the amount,’’; and 

16 (B) by striking ‘‘and a description of’’ and 

17 inserting ‘‘the identity of the specific depart18 ment, college, project, or other division of the 

19 institution that is the recipient (if applicable), 

20 and a description of the intended purpose and’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Shackelton, Appellant.

[966 NYS2d 695]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia *1157County (Nichols, J.), rendered December 13, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of rape in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts).

Defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, with the promise of a joint recommendation by the People and defendant of a sentence of one year in jail. County Court, however, made no commitment to be bound by the joint recommendation. At sentencing, the court deviated from the joint recommendation and sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of IV2 years in prison plus five years of postrelease supervision on the rape conviction and one year in jail on each of the convictions of endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant appeals, asserting that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice.1

The record establishes that County Court considered appropriate factors in imposing the sentence, including defendant’s subsequent repudiation of guilt when interviewed by a family assessment therapist, which the court found indicated defendant’s failure to take responsibility for his crime.2 Based upon our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Singh,*105 AD3d 1214 [2013]; *People v Rieder,*8 AD3d 757 [2004], *Iv denied*3 NY3d 711 [2004]).

Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

1

. Although defendant waived his right to appeal as part of the plea agreement, he specifically preserved his right to appeal from a sentence greater than the joint recommendation (see *People v*Watson, 61 AD3d 1217, 1217 [2009], *Iv denied*12 NY3d 930 [2009]).

2

. In light of defendant’s out-of-court repudiation of guilt, County Court offered defendant an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea, which defendant declined.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-16-1999
<CASH>                                          23,026
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    163,983
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,027
<PP&E>                                         917,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                 527,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,007,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,666
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     242,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,007,922
<SALES>                                      1,199,616
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,199,616
<CGS>                                          836,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  836,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               400,701
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (60,163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,258
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (64,421)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (64,421)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.15)



</TABLE>