alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, Sterling H. McDonald, Chief Financial Officer of Natural Gas
Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies in connection with the filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report")") pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, to
his knowledge, 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
27th day of October, 2005.


                        /s/ STERLING H. MCDONALD
                        -----------------------------
                            Sterling H. McDonald
                            Chief Financial Officer
2:14-cv-13517-PDB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 408
2:14-cv-13517-PDB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 409
2:14-cv-13517-PDB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 410
2:14-cv-13517-PDB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 411
2:14-cv-13517-PDB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 412
2:14-cv-13517-PDB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 413
2:14-cv-13517-PDB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 414
2:14-cv-13517-PDB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 415
2:14-cv-13517-PDB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 416
2:14-cv-13517-PDB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 01/29/16 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 417
# C_2012399EN.01001901.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2012 — Antrax It v OHIM — THC (Radiators for heating)

(Joined Cases T-83/11 and T-84/11) (1)

1

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community designs representing thermosiphons for the purposes of radiators for heating - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Overall impression not different - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - No scope for innovation - Obligation to state reasons)

2012/C 399/32

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Mannucci and A. Folliard-Monguiral initially, then A. Folliard-Monguiral and F. Mattina, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: The Heating Company (THC) (Dilsen, Belgium) (represented by: J. Haber, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 (Cases R 1451/2009-3 and R 1452/2009-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between The Heating Company (THC) and Antrax It Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 November 2010 (Cases R 1451/2009-3 and R 1452/2009-3) in so far as they declared invalid the designs Nos 000593959-0001 and 000593959-0002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 November 2010 (Cases R 1451/2009-3 and R 1452/2009-3) in so far as they declared invalid the designs Nos 000593959-0001 and 000593959-0002;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by Antrax It Srl in the proceedings before the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by Antrax It Srl in the proceedings before the General Court;

| 4. | Orders The Heating Company (THC), in addition to bearing its own costs before the General Court, to pay those incurred by Antrax It in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders The Heating Company (THC), in addition to bearing its own costs before the General Court, to pay those incurred by Antrax It in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.28

          AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED LIMITED GUARANTY AGREEMENT

                      (Knowledge Universe Capital Co. LLC)

                                   WITNESSETH:

        Reference is made to the Amended and Restated Limited Guaranty Agreement
dated March 29, 2002 ("Limited Guaranty"). All capitalized terms used herein
shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Limited Guaranty.

        1. The Guarantor and Agent (on behalf of itself and the other Lenders)
hereby agree that Section 3(b)(v) of the Limited Guaranty shall be amended by
deleting the date "December 15, 2003" therein and by substituting the date
"January 2, 2004" in place thereof.

        2. The Guarantor and the Agent (on behalf of itself and the other
Lenders) hereby affirm, confirm and ratify all of the terms of the Limited
Guaranty, as amended hereby.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument
under seal under Massachusetts law on this 18th day of April, 2002.

                                         KNOWLEDGE UNIVERSE CAPITAL CO. LLC


  /s/ Jim L. Banks                       By:   /s/ Stanley E. Maron
--------------------------------               --------------------------------
Witness Jim L. Banks                           Name: Stanley E. Maron
                                               Title:   Secretary

                                         FLEET NATIONAL BANK, as Agent


  /s/ Sean Driscoll                      By:   /s/ Michael F. O'Neill
--------------------------------               --------------------------------
Witness Sean Driscoll                          Name: Michael F. O'Neill
                                               Title:   Senior Workout Officer


                                       1
# C_2008251EN.01001801.xml

| 3.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/18

---

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Company Limited

(Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

(Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

(2008/C 251/09)

| Insurance undertaking | Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Company Limited, 12 Plumtree Court, London, EC4A 4HT, United Kingdom |
| --- | --- |
| Date, entry into force and nature of the decision | On 23 July 2008, pursuant to Section 125 of the Insolvency Act 1986, a compulsory Winding-up Order was made against Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Company Limited and pursuant to Section 136 of the Insolvency Act 1986 the Official Receiver was appointed Liquidator |
| Competent authorities | Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HS, United Kingdom |
| Supervisory authority | Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HS, United Kingdom |
| Liquidator appointed | The Official Receiver, Public Interest Unit, 21 Bloomsbury Street,London WC1B 3SS, United Kingdom
  E-mail: piu.or@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk |
| Applicable law | United Kingdom
  In the Matter of Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Company Limited
  and
  In the Matter of The Insolvency Act 1986
  And
  In the Matter of The Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding-up) Regulations 2004 |

Insurance undertaking

Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Company Limited, 12 Plumtree Court, London, EC4A 4HT, United Kingdom

Date, entry into force and nature of the decision

On 23 July 2008, pursuant to Section 125 of the Insolvency Act 1986, a compulsory Winding-up Order was made against Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Company Limited and pursuant to Section 136 of the Insolvency Act 1986 the Official Receiver was appointed Liquidator

Competent authorities

Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HS, United Kingdom

Supervisory authority

Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HS, United Kingdom

Liquidator appointed

The Official Receiver, Public Interest Unit, 21 Bloomsbury Street,London WC1B 3SS, United Kingdom

E-mail: piu.or@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk

Applicable law

United Kingdom

In the Matter of Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Company Limited

and

In the Matter of The Insolvency Act 1986

And

In the Matter of The Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding-up) Regulations 2004

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

_________________________________________________________________

DONALD STURGIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-14032

TIMOTHY WILLIS, et al.,

Defendants,

 /

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the court’s “Order of Dismissal” dated January 6, 2015,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of

Defendants Timothy Willis, et al. Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 6th day of January

2015.

 DAVID J. WEAVER

 CLERK OF THE COURT

s/ Lisa Wagner 

By: Lisa Wagner, Case Manager

 to Judge Robert H. Cleland

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\14-14032.STURGIS.Judgment.dmi.wpd

2:14-cv-14032-RHC-DRG Doc # 10 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 104
July 1, 2015

Mr. Matt Shelton

91 Stonebridge Suite 102

Jackson, TN 38305

Dear Mr. Shelton :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your April 23, 2015

, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA− 2015

-

1242 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket w ithout notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

B renda Robeson

P rogram Anal yst

, A ircraft and

Airpor t Rules Division

Enclosure
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.055-7 Sampling, tests, and inspections. ( a ) Production tests and inspections must be conducted by the manufacturer of a life preserver and the accepted laboratory inspector in accordance with this section and § 160.001-5.
( b ) *Buoyancy test.* The buoyancy of the pad inserts from the life preserver shall be determined according to § 160.001-5(f) of this part with each compartment of the buoyant pad insert covers slit so as not to entrap air. The period of submersion must be at least 48 hours.
( c ) *Buoyancy required.* The buoyant pad inserts from Model 3 adult life preservers shall provide not less than 25 pounds buoyancy in fresh water, and the pads from Model 5 child life preservers shall provide not less than 16.5 pounds buoyancy.
[CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51215, Sept. 30, 1997]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.056-1 General requirements. ( a ) Rescue boats accepted and in use prior to the effective date of this subpart may be continued in service if in satisfactory condition.
( b ) All rescue boats must be properly constructed, of such form as to be readily maneuverable, and be of the open rowboat type. They shall be suitable for use of three persons.
( c ) Rescue boats shall be constructed of materials acceptable to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, having jurisdiction of construction.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Onyx Acceptance Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Don P. Duffy, EVP, CFO and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.

/s/ DON P. DUFFYName: Don P. Duffy
Title: Executive Vice President,
CFO and Principal Financial Officer
Date: March 30, 2004


This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
and not for any other purpose.
# C_2011282EN.01000902.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira (Portugal) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Serafim Gomes Oliveira v Lusitânia Companhia de Seguros SA

(Case C-362/11)

2011/C 282/17

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Serafim Gomes Oliveira

Applicant:

Defendant: Lusitânia Companhia de Seguros SA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the provision of Portuguese law requiring compensation to be reduced in proportion to the fault of both parties in the accident in question, which occurred in November 2006 between a bicycle and a passenger vehicle with compulsory motor insurance, consistent with Community law, even though the cyclist was less than 20 % at fault?

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 160.151-49 Approval of servicing facilities at remote sites.

A servicing facility may be approved for servicing liferafts at a remote site, provided that appropriate arrangements have been made to ensure that each such site meets the requirements of §§ 160.151-41(e), 160.151-43, and 160.151-45. The facility must have a portable assortment of test equipment, spare parts, and replacement survival equipment to accompany the technician doing the servicing. However, if repair of liferafts will not be attempted at a remote site, equipment needed for repair does not need to be available at that site. A facility must be specifically authorized in its letter of approval to conduct servicing at a remote site.
§ 134.150 Liftboat-jacking systems. ( a ) For this subchapter, liftboat jacking systems are vital systems and must comply with Sections 4/1.13.1 through 4/1.13.3 of the ABS's “Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units” as well as meet the applicable requirements of part 128 of this subchapter.
( b ) Each control system for a liftboat jacking system must be designed so that loss of power, loss of pressure in the hydraulic system, or low hydraulic-fluid level will activate a visible and audible alarm at the operating station and will not result in the liftboat's uncontrolled descent.
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.108-3 Testing, marking, and inspection requirements. ( a ) Each bulkhead (B-0 & B-15) submitted for type approval must be tested in accordance with non-combustibility under Annex 1, Part 1 and then tested for fire resistance under Annex 1, Part 3 of the FTP Code (incorporated by reference, see § 164.108-2).
( b ) All testing and inspections required by this subpart must be performed by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter. A list of independent laboratories accepted as meeting subpart 159.010 of this chapter is available online at *http://psix.uscg.mil/EQLabs/Default.aspx*.
( c ) The independent laboratory must perform an initial factory inspection to select the test specimens and establish the materials of construction, chemical make-up, dimensions, tolerances, and other related factors needed to confirm product consistency during follow-up production inspections.
( d ) Production inspections must be performed by the independent laboratory in accordance with subpart 159.007 of this chapter at least annually to confirm that no changes have been made to the product that may adversely affect its fire performance as a bulkhead.
( e ) The independent laboratory must prepare production inspection procedures and a report of the results of the fire testing program, and must furnish the manufacturer with three copies of each upon completion of the required testing.
( f ) Materials approved under this subpart must be shipped in packaging that is clearly marked with the name of the manufacturer, product designation, date of manufacture, batch or lot number, and Coast Guard type approval number.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement numbers 333-52460 and 333-37790 of Patina Oil & Gas Corporationand its subsidiaries on Form S-8 and Registration Statement number 333-110708 on Form S-3, and in Registration Statement number 333-122262 of Noble Energy, Inc. on Form S-4 of our reports dated February 23, 2005, relating to the financial statements(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph for the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations”) of Patina Oil & GasCorporation and to management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Denver, Colorado 

February 23, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

________________________________ 

Noel Janis, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________ 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 2:14-cv-14945-SJM 

 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

WHEREAS, the parties in the above-captioned action wish to discontinue 

the litigation; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties 

and/or their respective counsel as follows that, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), 

the above-captioned action is hereby dismissed against Enhanced Recovery 

Company, LLC with prejudice and without costs to any party. 

Noel Janis 

___/s/ Sergei Lemberg__________ 

Sergei Lemberg, Esq. 

LEMBERG LAW, LLC 

1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor 

Stamford, CT 06905 

Tel: (203) 653-2250 

slemberg@lemberglaw.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC 

_/s/ Scott Gallagher________ 

Scott S. Gallagher 

Primary: ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com 

Secondary: mhowell@sgrlaw.com 

50 North Laura Street, Suite 2600 

Jacksonville, Florida 32202 

Tel: (904) 598-6111 

Fax: (904) 598-6211 

Attorney for Defendant 

Case 2:14-cv-14945-SJM-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 06/16/15 PageID.28 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED. 

S/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

Stephen J. Murphy, III 

United States District Judge 

Dated: June 16, 2015 

I hereby certify that a copy of the 

foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on June 

16, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary 

mail. 

S/Carol Cohron 

Case Manager

 

Case 2:14-cv-14945-SJM-DRG ECF No. 9 filed 06/16/15 PageID.29 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.5 Applicability.

This part applies to each self-propelled vessel that has on board bulk liquefied gases as cargo, cargo residue or vapor, except subpart C does not apply if the vessel meets § 154.12 (b), (c), or (d).
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.368 Pressure-vacuum valves. ( a ) The pressure side of a required pressure-vacuum relief valve must begin to open only at a pressure exceeding 3.5 kPa gauge (approx. 0.5 psig).
( b ) A pressure-vacuum relief valve must meet the requirements of Subpart 162.017 of this chapter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 The Court will hold monthly telephone status conferences as follows: 

November 18, 2016, December 9, 2016, January 13, 2017, and February 10, 2017 at 

3:00 p.m. 

To participate in the conference, dial into the Eastern District of Michigan’s telephone 

conference system at (866) 434-5269. The system will then provide directions for joining the 

call; when asked for an access code, use 9819334. If possible, please refrain from participating in 

the conference on a cell phone. 

s/Keisha Jackson 

 Case Manager to 

 District Judge Laurie J. Michelson 

 

 Dated: October 14, 2016 

AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS 

ASSOCIATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, 

LLC, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 15-10137 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Companion Case: 15-10394 

NOTICE OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 

2:15-cv-10137-LJM-SDD Doc # 36 Filed 10/14/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 554