alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-4 of HealthSouth Corporation of our report dated March 31, 2015, except for Note 16 as to which the date is January 29, 2016, relating to the financial statements of Reliant Hospital Partners, LLC as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014. We also consent to the reference to us as experts under the heading “Experts” in such Registration Statement.








/s/ BKD LLP


Dallas, Texas


January 29, 2016
**Exhibit 32.2**

**IDEAEDGE, INC.**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IdeaEdge, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan Shultz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 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.
# C_2006294EN.01000301.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-378/03) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Communities' own resources - Payment in instalments by the debtor - Recovery)

(2006/C 294/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and C. Giolito, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits and A. Goldman, Agents and B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, avocat,)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 6, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Eurotom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Eurotom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Late payment of the own resources where the debtor pays in stages — Import duties

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, because of the late payment of own resources in the case of receipt of payments in instalments from a debtor, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, which, with effect from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, which was identical in subject-matter; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, because of the late payment of own resources in the case of receipt of payments in instalments from a debtor, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, which, with effect from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, which was identical in subject-matter;

| 2) | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3) | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264, 01.11.2003.

1

---
# C_2006294EN.01004602.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/46

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Blackler v Parliament

(Case T-420/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Competition on the basis of qualifications and tests - Conditions for admission - Length of studies - Assessment of the candidates' qualifications and merits - Infringement of the notice of competition - Manifest error of assessment)

(2006/C 294/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kenneth Blackler (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Bencomo Weber and J.F. De Wachter, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Primarily, application for annulment of the Secretary General of the European Parliament's decision of 11 July 2004 confirming the decision of the selection board in competition PE/98/A of 21 April 2004 not to admit the applicant to the oral tests in that competition or, in the alternative, application for an order that the European Parliament should pay the applicant EUR 100 000 by way of damages for the material and non-material loss suffered by him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Rejects the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rejects the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

1

---
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

82-31 

October 27, 1982 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4062 Liability of Employer in Single Employer Plans

4063 Liability of Substantial Employer for Withdrawal

4064 Liability of Employers in Multiple Employer & Multiemployer Plans 

OPINION: 

 This responds to your request for an opinion with respect to the liability of the A under Title IV of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") with reference to the transaction described below. 

You have represented to us as follows. A is a wholly-owned subsidiary of B. C Corporation owns 100% of the

outstanding common stock of B. C Corporation is 100% owned by the D Company * * *, the parent company.

Therefore, A is presently a member of a group of trades or businesses under common control as defined in Section

4001(b) of ERISA. A is presently the sole employer contributing to the B, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan ("the Plan"),

a defined benefit pension plan which is completely independent of any of the other pension plans maintained by D or

by members of D's controlled group. D proposes to sell 100% of the stock of A for fair and reasonable consideration

to the E Company of. E is unrelated to A or any member of D's controlled group. Subsequent to the Proposed sale, A

shall continue [*2] as the sole employer contributing to the Plan. The assets of the Plan are sufficient to fund all benefits

guaranteed by Title IV of ERISA. The purchase price is approximately * * * and such amount is a fair and reasonable

price. The sale is to be closed on October 27, 1982. 

Based on the foregoing facts and in reliance on your representations you are advised that if the proposed sale as

described above is consummated, the PBGC will not pursue liability against A under Section 4062 of ERISA arising

from the termination of pension plans maintained by D or any member of the controlled group. In addition, under the

circumstances that you have described, Sections 4063 and 4064 of ERISA would not apply. Of course, A would have

potential Title IV liability in connection with the Plan in the event of termination. 

I hope this response is helpful. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-86 

June 25, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(1). Plans covered. Individual Account Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of May 13, 1976 seeking a determination of the coverage status of the abovereferenced Plans under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"). Specifically, you

ask whether the Plans are defined benefit plans or individual account plans, the latter being excluded from Title IV

coverage. 

Each Plan provides in Article V that a participant is entitled at normal retirement age to a monthly retirement benefit

equal to a specific dollar amount multiplied by his years of credited service. This is a defined benefit. You refer to three

provisions in each Plan which you indicate "restrict" the amount of benefit entitlement and which you interpret to have

the effect of classifying the Plans as individual account plans. These provisions are in (1) Article IX(1), which provides

that the employer's contributions (which are a specified number of cents per hour worked) "shall be in complete discharge

of the Company's obligation under the Plan," (2) Article IV(7), which provides that "the Plan can be fulfilled only to the

extent that the Pension Fund Trust Fund has assets available [*2] . . . .", and (3) Article IX(5) and (6), which limit the

insurance carrier's guarantee and liability. 

The classification of a plan as defined benefit is determined by the benefit promised to participants by the plan, not

by the plan's provisions relating to the obligation of an employer to the plan. Here, benefits are not based solely on the

amounts contributed to individual accounts and their experience (gains and losses), the requisite of an individual account

plan [See Act, Section 3(34)]. Plans other than individual account plans constitute defined benefit plans [See Act,

Section 3(35)]. 

Assuming that the Plans are tax-qualified, they are covered under Title IV of the Act, absent the applicability of one

of the exemptions prescribed in Sections 4021(b)(2)-(13) of the Act. 

We will be happy to meet with you to discuss this ruling. If you have any further questions, you may telephone *

* * of this office at (202) 254-4873. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.185 How long does the Federal government have to process an FTCA claim after the claim is received by the Federal agency, before a lawsuit may be filed?

Six months.
Next 60 Days

Key Events

total residual fuel March 2024 tRANSITION

total fuel removed (gallonS) 

CRI: Community Representation Initiative

DLNR: Department of Land and Natural Resources 

DISF: Defueling Information Sharing Forum

NB: NEIGHBORHOOD BOARD

Joint Task Force – Red Hill

RESIDUAL FUEL TRACKER

As of MARCH 6, 2024 

Subject to Revision

Dashboard Legend

March:

5-8 mar - Regulatory inspection 

7 MAR - FUEL TANK ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

19 MAR - DLNR COMMISSION ON WATER 

 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEETING

21 MAR - (Tentative) CRI MEETING

28 MAR - jtf-rh stands down 

1 0 4 7 0 3 5 7 4

6 1 4 1 4

Visit the Navy Closure Task 

Force-Red Hill Website by Scanning 

or clicking the QR code below

*gravity defueling + accessible residual fuel draining

joint task force-red hill 

completed residual fuel draining

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Hawaii 

Department of Health (DOH) are now conducting a

Regulatory Interim Defueling Inspection to ensure and 

document all JTF-RH actions stipulated in the EPA Consent

Order and DOH Emergency Order are complete. The inspection 

is expected to conclude this week.

Simultaneously, JTF-RH continues their turnover with the 

newly established Navy Closure Task Force to ensure 

continuity of mission for safety, security, and community 

engagement.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 Consolidated Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David Guthrie, Principal Executive 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 and belief:

 (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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ David Guthrie
David Guthrie, Principal Executive Officer

Date: November 21, 2005


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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*TENG BUNLEUT

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 82 Conn. App. 648 (AC 23425), is denied.

*905Decided June 23, 2004

*Carlos E. Candal,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Howard S. Stein,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1438 

KA 10-02422 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

KEITH C. FERRIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

WILLIAMS, HEINL, MOODY & BUSCHMAN, P.C., AUBURN (RYAN J. MULDOON OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G.

Leone, J.), rendered October 7, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth

degree and evading or defeating cigarette and tobacco products tax. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
MBUAPCD

SIP Completeness Checklist 1 

### MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST

RULE NUMBER: 904 DATE AMENDED: 4/20/05

REGULATION TITLE: Trade Secrets - Procedure when Inspection is Requested

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

Attached/Not Attached*

X COMPLETE COPY OF THE RULE. If amended rule, indicate changes in underline and strikeout format, compared to existing approved SIP version.

X REFERENCE TO OTHER RULES. If the rule contains a reference

to any other rule, attach a copy of that other rule unless it has already been submitted to EPA as a part of a previous SIP submittal.

X PUBLIC NOTICE EVIDENCE. Include a copy of the newspaper clipping certification with date of publication. Include a copy of notice from each newspaper.

X RESOLUTION/MINUTE ORDER. Must include Board Clerk certification that hearing was held in accordance with information in the public notice; must also include list of rules adopted or amended, dat e of public hearing, and statement of compliance with H&SC Sections 40725-40728 [Administrative Procedures Act].

X PUB LIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: Any written comments submitted to the District during pubic notice period or at the hearing; also include any written responses prepared by the District as normal District procedure.MBUAPCD

SIP Completeness Checklist 2 OTHER INFORMATION

Attached/Not Attached

X MODELING SUPPORT. Provide as appropriate; not required for

VOC and NOx rules; required where rule is a relaxation in an attainment

area for SO2, PM10, CO, or NOx [for NO2 purposes]; for relaxation or shift of emissions in nonattainment area for SO2, PM10, CO, and NOx, give reference to the approved SIP.

X ECONOMIC/TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DE VIATIONS

FROM EPA POLICIES: As appropriate, describe special circumstances, i.e., where alternative RACT is used, extended compliance dates included, etc.**

X ADDITIONAL MATERIALS: Any other supporting information, such as staff reports , which are included with the rule package but not specifically required in the checklist above.

------------- * Attached separate sheet for each rule explaining why any materials are not included and when they will be submitted to the ARB.

** Completed enforcement checklist will fulfill this requirement.
No. 89-6744.

#### Lightsey *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
Directory of Trails        - Directory of Trails
        - 1. Tidelands Trail - Fremont
        - 2. LaRiviere Marsh Trail -Fremont
        - 3. Shoreline Trail & 4. No Name Trail - Fremont
        - 5. Newark Slough Trail - Fremont
        - 6. Warm Springs Trail - Fremont
        - 7. Coyote Creek Lagoon Trail - Fremont
        - 8. Alviso Slough Trail - Alviso
        - 9. Mallard Slough Trail - Alviso
        - 10. New Chicago Marsh Trail - Alviso
        - 11. Moffett Bay Trail - Sunnyvale
        - 12. Stevens Creek East Trail - Mountain View
        - 13. Faber-Laumeister Trail - East Palo Alto
        - 14. Ravenswood Trail - Menlo Park
        - 15. SF2 Trail - Menlo Park
        - 16. Bair Island Trail - Redwood City

## 15. SF2 Trail - Menlo Park

**Length**0.7 miles one way

**Amenities and Uses**Parking, chemical toilet, observation platforms with scope, wayside exhibits, hiking, bicycling. No pets.

**Trail Surface**Flat, compacted gravel levee.

**Highlights**Thousands of shorebirds flock to the islands and shallow waters in the winter. Enjoy two observation platforms with viewing scopes and exhibits interpreting the restoration process. 

**Connections to Other Trails**You can walk to the north side of the Dumbarton Bridge to access Ravenswood Trail. Connects to the Bay Trail leading to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, or over the Dumbarton Bridge to Fremont. 

**Directions to Trailhead***From the East Bay:* Cross the Dumbarton Bridge and exit at the Ravenswood Unit sign. Drive the frontage road east 0.4 miles and under the bridge. Parking is on the right. 

*From the west (Menlo Park):* From Bayfront Expy., drive toward the Dumbarton Bridge. Exit at the Ravenswood Unit sign and drive east on the frontage road. Parking is on the left.

**Click on map to enlarge.**

****
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Warren D. Knowlton, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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 Graham Packaging Holdings Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 6, 2008



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Warren D. Knowlton 
|    |  | Warren D. Knowlton     
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2006294EN.01002102.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/21

---

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 — Soffass SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Sodipan SCA

(Case C-92/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark ‘NICKY’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative marks ‘NOKY’ and ‘noky’ - Purely factual assessment - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

(2006/C 294/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Soffass SpA (represented by: V. Biliardo, C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), (represented by: M. Capostagno, Agent), Sodipan SCA (represented by: N. Bœspflug, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 November 2005 in Case T-396/04 Soffass v OHMI whereby the Court dismissed as unfounded an action by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘NICKY’ for goods in Class 15 for annulment of Decision R 699/2003-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 16 July 2004 annulling the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national figurative marks ‘NOKY’ and ‘noky’ for goods in Class 16.

Soffass

OHMI

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Soffass SpA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Soffass SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.05.2006

1

---
### [§2468. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title X, §1048(e)(10)(A), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1228]

Section, added Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title XI, §1131(a)(1), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1560; amended Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title IX, §921, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1627; Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title III, §315(a), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1337; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title III, §370(c), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1634; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title III, §386(c), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2742, related to authority of military base commanders over contracting for commercial activities.