alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1














PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of Frontline Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Fredriksen, the 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:





(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.








A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: April 26, 2012








/s/ John Fredriksen


John Fredriksen


Principal Executive Officer
### §12313. Reserves: release from active duty

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the Secretary concerned may at any time release a Reserve under his jurisdiction from active duty.

(b) In time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President after January 1, 1953, a member of a reserve component may be released from active duty (other than for training) only if—

(1) a board of officers convened at his request by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned recommends the release and the recommendation is approved;

(2) the member does not request that a board be convened; or

(3) his release is otherwise authorized by law.

This subsection does not apply to an armed force during a period of demobilization or reduction in strength of that armed force.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 31, §681; renumbered §12313, Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1662(e)(2), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2992.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 681(a)681(b) | 50:967(a).50:967 (less (a)). | July 9, 1952, ch. 608, §239, 66 Stat. 492. |

681(b)

50:967 (less (a)).

In subsection (a), the word "title" is substituted for the word "chapter". The provisions of this title relating to active duty of Reserves are based on the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952. The words "under his jurisdiction" are inserted for clarity. The words "or active duty for training" are omitted as covered by the words "active duty".

Subsection (b) is substituted for 50:967(b). Clause (3) is inserted, since other provisions of law are necessarily exceptions to the general rule here stated.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–337 renumbered section 681 of this title as this section.
### §2122. Removal of officer from list of selectees for promotion

(a) The President may remove the name of any officer from a list of selectees established under section 2121 of this title.

(b) If the Senate does not consent to the appointment of an officer whose name is on a list of selectees established under section 2121 of this title, that officer's name shall be removed from this list.

(c) An officer whose name is removed from a list under subsection (a) or (b) continues to be eligible for consideration for promotion. If he is selected for promotion by the next selection board and promoted, he shall be given the date of rank and position on the active duty promotion list in the grade to which promoted that he would have held if his name had not been removed. However, if the officer is not selected by the next selection board or if his name is again removed from the list of selectees, he shall be considered for all purposes as having twice failed of selection for promotion.

(Added Pub. L. 88–130, §1(10)(C), Sept. 24, 1963, 77 Stat. 182, §272; renumbered §2122 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §§112(b), 123(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4216, 4240.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, §112(b), renumbered section 272 of this title as this section.

Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 115–282, §123(b)(2), substituted "section 2121" for "section 271".

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Authority

Authority of President under subsec. (a) of this section to remove a name of an officer from a list of selectees delegated to Secretary of Homeland Security by Ex. Ord. No. 14106, §1(b), Aug. 14, 2023, 88 F.R. 55905, set out in a note under section 2101 of this title.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11258 Conference Calendar

L. T. RUNELS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus D.L. KEESEE, Sheriff of Lubbock County Texas, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:97-CV-262-C

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * L.T. Runels, Texas prisoner # 707445, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as malicious and repetitive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Runels argues on appeal that, being a layman in the law, his first filing of this § 1983 action was dismissed without prejudice because he did not know what to file or how to file. He alleges that he was assisted by a writ writer in filing this second suit to correct the errors ofNo. 97-11258 -2- the first suit. He states that in this second filing, he has clearly shown a constitutional violation. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Runels v. Keesee , No. 5:97-CV-262- C (N.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 1997). Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the record of the prior action shows that the suit was dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. We further find that Runels’ appeal is without arguable merit, and we DISMISS IT AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Runels is hereby put on notice that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous constitutes his third strike under the PLRA and that he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Adepegba v.
Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1997). APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SAMUEL CLARKE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1051

[July 29, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Thomas J. Coleman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 13-14397CF10A.

Robert David Malove of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., 

Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0503 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-032-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model BO-105A, BO-105C, and BO-105S 

Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 97 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect oil contamination in the main gearbox (MGB), 

which if not detected, could result in MGB deterioration, MGB failure, and subsequent loss of control of 

the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $225,000 (for main transmission replacement)

Labor per Helicopter

(2 x $85/work-hour for 

inspecting & cleaning)

(4 x $85/work-hour for 

flushing & re-inspecting)

(40 x $85/work-hour for 

replacing the main 

transmisstion)

$170 per cycle

$340 per cycle

$3,400

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $

Total US Fleet Cost $

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Rao Edupuganti
| **RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS (Details Textual)** | 3 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| Percentage Of Annual Management Fee              | 0.375%         |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
The percentage of annual management fee.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**bctc_PercentageOfAnnualManagementFee**Namespace Prefix:**bctc_**Data Type:**num:percentItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
### §4633. Hearings

#### (a) Requirements

#### (1) Venue and record

Any hearing under section 4631, 4636(c), or 4636a of this title shall be held on the record and in the District of Columbia.

#### (2) Timing

Any such hearing shall be fixed for a date not earlier than 30 days nor later than 60 days after service of the notice of charges under section 4631 or 4636a of this title or determination to impose a penalty under section 4636 of this title, unless an earlier or a later date is set by the hearing officer at the request of the party served.

#### (3) Procedure

Any such hearing shall be conducted in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5.

#### (4) Failure to appear

If the party served fails to appear at the hearing through a duly authorized representative, such party shall be deemed to have consented to the issuance of the cease-and-desist or removal or prohibition order or the imposition of the penalty for which the hearing is held.

#### (b) Issuance of order

#### (1) In general

After any such hearing, and within 90 days after the parties have been notified that the case has been submitted to the Director for final decision, the Director shall render the decision (which shall include findings of fact upon which the decision is predicated) and shall issue and serve upon each party to the proceeding an order or orders consistent with the provisions of this subchapter.

#### (2) Modification

Judicial review of any such order shall be exclusively as provided in section 4634 of this title. Unless such a petition for review is timely filed as provided in section 4634 of this title, and thereafter until the record in the proceeding has been filed as so provided, the Director may at any time, modify, terminate, or set aside any such order, upon such notice and in such manner as the Director considers proper. Upon such filing of the record, the Director may modify, terminate, or set aside any such order with permission of the court.

(Pub. L. 102–550, title XIII, §1373, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3989; Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title I, §1153(b)(1)(B), July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2774.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 110–289, §1153(b)(1)(B)(i), substituted "section 4631, 4636(c), or 4636a of this title" for "section 4631 or 4636(c) of this title".

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 110–289, §1153(b)(1)(B)(ii), inserted "or 4636a" after "section 4631".

Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 110–289, §1153(b)(1)(B)(iii), which directed amendment of par. (4) by inserting "or removal or prohibition" after "cease and desist", was executed by making the insertion after "cease-and-desist" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The
Board of Directors of
Clarus Corporation:





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-42600, 333-42604, 333-127686 and 333-79565) of Clarus
Corporation of our reports dated March 15, 2010, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Clarus Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, and the
related financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the
December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Clarus Corporation.





/s/ KPMG LLPStamford,
      ConnecticutMarch
      15, 2010
§ 352.5 Fees and charges. ( a ) Fees and charges for service under the regulations in this part shall be paid by the applicant for the service in accordance with this section.
( b ) The fees and charges provided for in this section shall be paid by check, draft, or money order payable to the “Treasurer of the United States” and shall be remitted promptly to the Regional Director upon furnishing to the applicant a statement as to the amount due.
( c ) The fees to be charged and collected for service under the regulations in this part shall be at the rates specified in §§ 391.2, 391.3, and 391.4 respectively for base time; for overtime including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; and for certain laboratory services which are not covered under the base time, overtime, and/or holiday costs. Such fees shall cover the costs of the service and shall be charged for the time required to render such service, including, but not limited to, the time required for the travel of the inspector or inspectors in connection therewith during the regularly scheduled administrative workweek.
( d ) Charges may also be made to cover other expenses incurred by the Service in connection with the furnishing of the service.
( e ) Fees and charges for any inspection pursuant to a cooperative agreement with any State shall be paid in accordance with the terms of such cooperative agreement.
[50 FR 41847, Oct. 16, 1988, as amended at 53 FR 13398, Apr. 22, 1988; 54 FR 6390, Feb. 10, 1989]
# C_2007129EN.01000902.xml

| 9.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Zutphen (Nederland) lodged on 3 April 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Dirk Endendijk

(Case C-187/07)

(2007/C 129/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Zutphen

Parties to the main proceedings

Dirk Endendijk

Questions referred

| 1. | How is tethered, within the meaning of Directive 91/629/EEC (1), in conjunction with Decision 97/182/EC (2) to be interpreted? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How is tethered, within the meaning of Directive 91/629/EEC (1), in conjunction with Decision 97/182/EC (2) to be interpreted?

tethered

1

2

| 2. | Is the material, the length or the purpose of the tethering of any significance in that respect? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the material, the length or the purpose of the tethering of any significance in that respect?

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 28).

1

(2)  Commission Decision of 24 February 1997 amending the Annex to Directive 91/629/EEC (OJ 1997 L 76, p. 30).

2

---
§ 335.40 Opportunity for presentation of views before report of criminal violations. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section, before any violation of the Federal Meat Inspection Act is reported to the Department of Justice by the Secretary for criminal prosecution the Secretary must give reasonable notice to the suspected violator that the Secretary intends to report the violation for prosecution and give the suspected violator an opportunity to present the violator's views to the Secretary with respect to such proceeding. ( 1 ) Notice and opportunity need not be provided if the Secretary has any reason to believe that providing such notice and opportunity could result in the alteration or destruction of evidence, or where disclosure could result in injury to persons or property.
( 2 ) Notice and opportunity need not be provided if the Secretary has any reason to believe that providing such notice and opportunity could result in flight of a suspected violator to avoid prosecution.
( 3 ) Notice and opportunity need not be provided if the Secretary has any reason to believe that providing such notice and opportunity could result in compromising special investigative techniques, such as undercover or other covert operations.
( 4 ) Notice and opportunity need not be provided when the impending criminal referral involves suspicion of bribery and related offenses, or clandestine slaughtering and/or processing operations.
( 5 ) Notice and opportunity need not be provided when the impending referral is part of an investigation involving non-Act violations, and the Act and non-Act violations are jointly referred for prosecution.
( b ) A notice of opportunity to present views will be sent by registered or certified mail, summarize the violations that constitute the basis of the contemplated prosecution, and describe the procedures for presentation of views. Any information given by a respondent, orally or in writing, shall become part of the Department's official record concerning the matter. The Department is under no obligation to disclose evidence to the suspected violator.
[52 FR 13828, Apr. 27, 1987]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12716-12717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5169]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Meeting of the Board of Visitors of Marine Corps University

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) 
will meet to review, develop and provide recommendations on all aspects 
of the academic and administrative policies of the University; examine 
all aspects of professional military education operations; and provide 
such oversight and advice, as is necessary, to facilitate high 
educational standards and cost effective operations. The Board will be 
focusing primarily on the internal procedures of Marine Corps 
University. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday, April 8, 2011, from 8 a.m. 
to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Marine Corps University 
President's Conference Room (Hooper Room). The address is: 2076 South 
Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Westa, Director of Academic 
Support, Marine Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076 South Street, 
Quantico, Virginia 22134, telephone number 703-784-4037.


[[Page 12717]]


    Dated: March 1, 2011.
D. J. Werner,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-5169 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                              GRUPO TELEVISA, S.A.

              SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Salvi Rafael Folch Viadero, the Chief Financial Officer of Grupo Televisa,
S.A. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1.    The Company's annual report on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2004, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (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.

Date: July 7, 2005

                                    By: /s/ Salvi Folch Viadero
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Name: Salvi Folch Viadero
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
### SUBCHAPTER I—NATIONAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INITIATIVE
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-435 | October 2, 2019 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Darren Bedwell

Marion County Public Defender

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Antwain Coburn,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

October 2, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-435

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Jennifer P. 

Harrison, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G20-1306-FB-38641

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-435 | October 2, 2019 Page 2 of 3

[1] On January 15, 2014, Antwain Coburn pleaded guilty to Class B felony dealing 

in cocaine and two counts of Class D felony resisting law enforcement. 

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Coburn as follows: 

ten years for dealing in cocaine with two years suspended to Community 

Corrections; and three years each, executed, on the two Class D felony 

convictions, to be served concurrently with each other and with the dealing in 

cocaine conviction.

[2] On May 19, 2018, having fully served his sentences for the Class D felony 

convictions and the executed portion of the dealing in cocaine conviction, 

Coburn was released for two years of Community Corrections. Over the course 

of September, October, and December 2018, Community Corrections filed 

notices that Coburn had violated the terms of Community Corrections on four 

occasions.

[3] On January 24, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the notices of violation

and found that Coburn had, indeed, violated the terms of Community 

Corrections. As a result, the trial court revoked the Community Corrections 

placement and ordered Coburn to serve the remaining two years of the dealing 

in cocaine conviction in the Department of Correction. The abstract of 

judgment also ordered that two-year sentences for the Class D felony 

convictions be served concurrently with the two-year dealing sentence. Coburn 

appeals the portion of the trial court’s order imposing the Class D felony 

sentences a second time.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-435 | October 2, 2019 Page 3 of 3

[4] The State concedes that the trial court’s order was erroneous, given that Coburn 

had already served the sentences for his Class D felony convictions. We agree, 

as those sentences were fully served with no time suspended. It is axiomatic 

that once a sentence has been completely served, a trial court may not reinstate 

that sentence and order it to be served a second time.

[5] The judgment of the trial court is remanded with instructions to amend the 

abstract of judgment to remove the references to the Class D felony sentences.

Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.