alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

Via EDGAR

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the
Annual Report of Whiting USA Trust II (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its
individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Trust.

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: March 13, 2015 |  |  |  |     |  | The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | N.A., Trustee for Whiting USA Trust II    
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ MIKE ULRICH                           
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Mike Ulrich                               
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President
§ 211.41 Rentals and production royalty on oil and gas leases. ( a ) A lessee shall pay, in advance, beginning with the effective date of the lease, an annual rental of $2.00 per acre or fraction of an acre or such other greater amount as prescribed in the lease. This rental shall not be credited against production royalty nor shall the rental be prorated or refunded because of surrender or cancellation.
( b ) The Secretary shall not approve leases with a royalty rate less than 16- 2 ⁄ 3 percent of the amount or value of production produced and sold from the lease unless a lower royalty rate is agreed to by the Indian mineral owner and is found to be in the best interest of the Indian mineral owner. Such approval may only be granted by the area director if the approving official is the superintendent and by the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs if the approving official is the area director.
( c ) Value of lease production for royalty purposes shall be determined in accordance with applicable lease provisions and regulations in 30 CFR chapter II, subchapters A and C. If the valuation provisions in the lease are inconsistent with the regulations in 30 CFR chapter II, subchapters A and C, the lease provisions shall govern.
( d ) If the leased premises produce gas in excess of the lessee's requirements for the development and operation of said premises, then the lessor may use sufficient gas, free of charge, for any desired school or other buildings belonging to the tribe, by making his own connections to a regulator installed, connected to the well and maintained by the lessee, and the lessee shall not be required to pay royalty on gas so used. The use of such gas shall be at the lessor's risk at all times.
### SUBCHAPTER I—DECLARATIONS PROVIDING NEW CLAIMS TO UNITED STATES
Exhibit 8.1



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                       | Jurisdiction of        |              
|-------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | -------------
|                                       | Incorporation or       | Percentage of
|Name of Subsidiary                     | Organization           | Ownership    
|Hongri International Holdings Limited  | British Virgin Islands | 100%         
|Roller Rome Limited                    | British Virgin Islands | 100%         
|Vast Billion Investment Limited        | Hong Kong              | 100%         
|France Cock (China) Limited            | Hong Kong              | 100%         
|Hongri (Fujian) Sports Goods Co., Ltd. | PRC                    | 100%         
|Anhui Kai Xin Apparel Co. Ltd.         | PRC                    | 100%         
|Shishi Hongri Brand Management Limited | PRC                    | 100%
# C_2006326EN.01008101.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/81

---

Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Compagnie générale de Diététique v OHIM (GARUM)

(Case T-341/06)

(2006/C 326/164)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie générale de Diététique SAS (Caen, France) (represented by: J.-J. Evrard and T. de Haan, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GARUM’ for goods in Class 29 (application No 3501939)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) in that, contrary to the finding by the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, its mark is not descriptive in relation to the goods designated and having regard to the relevant public.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1419

MYRON J. BRYANT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY CONSULTANTS,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

STEVE MILLER, Owner; JEFF IVIE, Operations

Manager,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-99-654-5-BO(3), CA-00-273-5-BO(3))

Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 16, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David G. Schiller, SCHILLER LAW FIRM, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joy R. Webb, BROWNE, FLEBOTTE, WILSON & HORN,

P.L.L.C., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Myron J. Bryant appeals the district court’s order granting

Professional Recovery Consultants’ motion for summary judgment in

this employment discrimination action. We affirm.

This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo.

Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th

Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no

material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp.

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). This court must view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials submitted in the joint appendices, and fully considered the arguments

raised on appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Bryant v. Professional Recovery Consultants, Inc., Nos. CA-99-654-5-BO(3); CA-00-273-5-BO(3)

(E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-27-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                             209
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (430)
<INVENTORY>                                     32,722
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,350
<PP&E>                                          16,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,491)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,948
<BONDS>                                        105,987
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,757
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   167,307
<SALES>                                         32,125
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,125
<CGS>                                           15,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    32
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,279
<INCOME-TAX>                                       790
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                489
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       489
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### § 141.24 Attendance at semi-annual meetings.

Upon the request of a tribal official designated by the governing body, each licensee shall attend a semi-annual public meeting of a tribal governing body to respond to customer inquiries.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-4 

January 10, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4007(b) Payment of Premiums. Penalties and Interest 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of December 11, 1975 and subsequent telephone conversation with * * * of my

staff, concerning your request for a 60-day extension of the date by which your client, * * * must file its premium

declaration on Form PBGC-1. 

I understand that * * * indicated to you that this Corportion has no statutory authority to grant individual

extensions of premium filing due dates; accordingly, your request is denied. But, the PBGC does have statutory

authority to waive the imposition of late payment penalty charges resulting from the untimely declaration and

payment of premiums. * * * has informed me that as a result of his conversation with you, you expect to recommend

to your client either that it request a waiver of any late payment penalty charges, and support such request with an

appropriate demonstration of good cause, or that it file its Form PBGC-1 on a timely basis and file a revised Form

PBGC-1 as soon as the requisite participant data is available. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
Exhibit 32   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 Atlantica, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending  March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Alan D. Gordon, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Shelley Goff, Secretary and CFO of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:May15, 2008By:/s/Alan D. GordonAlan D. Gordon, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  Date:May 15, 2008By:/s/Shelley GoffShelley Goff, Secretary and CFO
From: Howard L. Gilberg [mailto:Gilberg@guidaslavichflores.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:33 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: Tsirigotis, Peter; Ginsburg, Eric; Fruh, Steve; Barnett, Keith; Jordan, Scott; Connie O'Neal; Eric 

Astrachan; Robert Hurt; Steve Wiederwax; Steve Willis; Tim Swaw

Subject: FW: Clay Ceramics Manufacturing: Proposed Subcategorization of Wall Tile Production

Sharon:

Please see the attached presentation supporting the TCNA’s request for subcategorization of wall tile 

production from floor tile production.

If you or your colleagues have any questions, please contact me.

Thank you in advance for your close evaluation of this request. 

Howard

Howard L. Gilberg

Guida, Slavich & Flores, P.C.

750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75201

214.692-0009 - phone

214.692-6610 - fax

gilberg@gsfpc.com

www.theenvironmentallawfirm.com

From: Pervenia P. Brown [mailto:Brown@guidaslavichflores.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 3:31 PM

To: Howard L. Gilberg

Subject: Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Subcategorization of Wall Tile

Attached.

Pervenia P. Brown

Legal Secretary to Howard L. Gilberg,

Tonya L. Meier, Michael R. Goldman 

and David E. Whitten

GUIDA, SLAVICH & FLORES, P.C.

750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75201

(ofc): 214.692.0009 Ext. 157

(fax): 214.692.6610

brown@gsfpc.com 

www.gsfpc.com 
This message, as well as any attached document, contains information that is confidential and/or 

privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The information is intended only for the use of the 

addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message or 

its attachments is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, 

please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy any hard copies 

you may have created, without disclosing the contents, and notify the sender immediately. Unintended 

transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege. Unless 

expressly stated otherwise, nothing contained in this message should be construed as a digital or 

electronic signature, nor is it intended to reflect an intention to make an agreement by electronic 

means.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 23, 2012 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY RAY MURRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE; CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE; THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Defendants - Appellees. No. 12-6147 (D.C. No. 5:12-CV-00542-R) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , TYMKOVICH , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges. **
Timothy Ray Murray, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint as frivolous. He filed this action seeking damages and injunctive relief against the United States, several members of the U.S. House and

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.Senate, and the Governor of Oklahoma. He alleges various conspiracies by the government against himself. This court his jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Mr. Murray alleges various government conspiracies, including the use of satellites to damage his reproductive system, the broadcast of his life on radio and television, and an alleged cover-up about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He alleges violations of his rights “under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments;” the district court reviewed his complaint based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a), 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it as frivolous. See Murray v. United States , No. CIV-12-542-R, ECF No. 14 (W.D. Okla. June 6, 2012). We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for frivolousness for an abuse of discretion. See Milligan v. Archuleta , 659 F.3d 1294, 1296 (10th Cir. 2011). After reviewing Mr. Murray’s claims, we agree with the district court that they seem to fall in the delusional category or involve claims that would be barred by sovereign immunity or the Eleventh Amendment. See Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989). AFFIRMED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

- 2 -
### §1011. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §34, 39 Stat. 384, set limits on effects of any court decisions respecting validity of provisions of act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, 39 Stat. 360.
# C_2006244EN.01002702.xml

| 11.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/27

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4353 — Permira/ALL3Media Group)

(2006/C 244/16)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 September 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4353. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4353. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2014049EN.01000601.xml

| 21.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/6

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2014/C 49/06)

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 8/20, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than 3 months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel | The People's Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 (OJ L 262, 6.10.2009, p. 19) | 7.10.2014 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel

The People's Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 (OJ L 262, 6.10.2009, p. 19)

7.10.2014

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
Exhibit 15.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-196478 on Form F-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-196622 and 333-203042 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 9, 2017 , relating to the consolidated financial statements and the financial statement schedule of Brookfield Property Partners L.P. and subsidiaries (the “Partnership”) and the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2016 .





/s/ Deloitte LLP


Chartered Professional Accountants


Licensed Public Accountants





Toronto, Canada


March 9, 2017