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



1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Central Federal Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 11, 2006
    /s/ Therese Ann LiutkusTherese Ann Liutkus, CPATreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 15803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1647]



[[Page 15801]]

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

Part IV





The President





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



Notice of March 30, 2007--Notice of Intention To Enter Into a Free 
Trade Agreement With Panama


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 62 / Monday, April 2, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 15803]]

                Notice of March 30, 2007

                
Notice of Intention To Enter Into a Free Trade 
                Agreement With Panama

                Consistent with section 2105(a)(1)(A) of the Trade Act 
                of 2002, I have notified the Congress of my intention 
                to enter into a free trade agreement with the Republic 
                of Panama.

                Consistent with section 2105(a)(1)(A) of that Act, this 
                notice shall be published in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    March 30, 2007.

[FR Doc. 07-1647
Filed 3-30-07; 11:26 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
#### Thomas McGauley, *Appellant, v.*Ann Early, *Individually and as Executrix, etc., of*Ann McGauley, *Deceased,*and others, *Respondents*.

Decree of surrogate affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Gilbert, J.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
USGS Online Publications Directory
NameLast modifiedSizeParent Directory                                    -   sim3113_appendix_a.xlsx        24-Feb-2010 14:55   64K  sim3113_appendix_a_data.csv    24-Feb-2010 13:48   63K  sim3113_appendix_a_data.pdf    24-Feb-2010 14:54   26K  sim3113_appendix_a_data.txt    24-Feb-2010 13:47   63K  sim3113_appendix_a_footnote..> 24-Feb-2010 13:49  3.2K  sim3113_appendix_a_footnote..> 24-Feb-2010 14:55   11K  sim3113_appendix_a_footnote..> 24-Feb-2010 13:48  3.2K  
AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3113/sim3113_appendix_a/Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Tuesday, July 28 2009, 01:08:18 PM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,635
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,266)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,252
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,541
<PP&E>                                         111,933
<DEPRECIATION>                                (51,046)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,133
<BONDS>                                        126,321
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           24,843
<PREFERRED>                                     23,557
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                    (87,550)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,206
<SALES>                                        128,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,268
<CGS>                                           88,674
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,674
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,857
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,113
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,113
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)


</TABLE>
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.

§ 154.1305 Liquid level gauging system: Standards. ( a ) Each cargo tank must have at least one liquid level gauging system that is operable: ( 1 ) At pressures up to, and including, the MARVS of the tank; and
( 2 ) At temperatures that are within the cargo handling temperature range for all cargoes carried.
( b ) Unless the cargo tank has one liquid gauging system that can be repaired and maintained when the tank contains cargo, each cargo tank must have at least two liquid level gauging systems that meet paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Each liquid level gauging system must measure liquid levels from 400 mm (16 in.) or less from the lowest point in the cargo tank, except collection wells, to 100 percent full.
Exhibit 23.2








Consent of Independent Auditors








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-207470, 333-207266 and 333-213107) and Form S-8 (No. 333-198727) of HC2 Holdings, Inc. of our report dated March 28, 2017, with respect to the consolidated statement of financial position of Huawei Marine Systems Co., Limited and its subsidiary as of December 31, 2016, and the related consolidated statements of profit or loss and other comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2016 annual report on Form 10-K/A of HC2 Holdings, Inc.





Our report dated March 28, 2017 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the accompanying consolidated statements of financial position of Huawei Marine Systems Co., Limited and its subsidiary as of December 31, 2015, and the related consolidated statements of profit or loss and other comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 were not audited, reviewed, or compiled by us and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them.








/s/ KPMG Huazhen LLP


Shenzhen, the People’s Republic of China


March 28, 2017
# C_2011232EN.01002102.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/21

---

Action brought on 10 June 2011 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union

(Case C-295/11)

(2011/C 232/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU) (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU) (1);

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the Italian Republic raises four pleas in law.

First, it submits that the enhanced cooperation procedure was authorised by the Council outside the limits provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 20(1) TEU, according to which such a procedure is to be allowed only within the framework of the European Union’s non-exclusive competences. The European Union has an exclusive competence to create ‘European rules’ which have Article 118 TFEU as their legal basis.

Second, it submits that the authorisation of enhanced cooperation in the present case is contrary to — or, in any event, not compatible with — the objectives in view of which such cooperation is provided for by the Treaties. In so far as that authorisation is contrary to, if not the letter, at least the spirit of Article 118 TFEU, it infringes Article 326(1) TFEU, in that the latter requires enhanced cooperation to comply with the Treaties and with EU law.

Third, the Italian Republic submits that the authorisation decision was adopted without an appropriate inquiry with regard to the last resort requirement and without an adequate statement of reasons on that point.

Lastly, according to the Italian Republic, the authorisation decision infringes Article 326 TFEU in that it adversely affects the internal market, introducing a barrier to trade between Member States and discrimination between undertakings, causing distortion of competition. Furthermore, it does not help to reinforce the EU’s integration process, and is thus contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 20(1) TEU.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 76, p. 53.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHANNON BOCZKOWSKI,

Plaintiff,

 -vs- Case No. 2:15-cv-10189

Hon. Paul D. Borman

Magistrate Judge: R. Steven Whalen

ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC,

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Having been advised by the stipulation of the parties below, it is ordered that the claims

against Allied Interstate, LLC are dismissed with prejudice and without costs, attorney fees or

sanctions to any party.

The court retains jurisdiction only for purposes of enforcing the settlement in this matter.

SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 18, 2015

1

Case 2:15-cv-10189-PDB-RSW ECF No. 28 filed 11/18/15 PageID.128 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party

of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on November 18, 2015.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

Stipulated To By:

s/ Julie A. Petrik

Julie A. Petrik (P47131)

Attorney For Plaintiff

Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law Center,

PLC

Southfield, MI 48075

PH: (248) 208-8864

Julie@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com

s/ by consent David Schultz 

David Schultz 

Attorney for Allied Interstate, LLC

Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP

222 North LaSalle Street 

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 704-3000

dschultz@hinshawlaw.com

2

Case 2:15-cv-10189-PDB-RSW ECF No. 28 filed 11/18/15 PageID.129 Page 2 of 2
§ 169.307 Plans for sister vessels. Plans are not required for any vessel which is a sister ship to a vessel, provided that— ( a ) The approved plans for the original vessels are already on file at any Marine Inspection Office;
( b ) The owner of the plans authorizes their use for the new construction;
( c ) The regulations have not changed since the original plan approval; and
( d ) There are no major modifications to any of the systems used.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3645

___________ Jay B. Marcus; Marcus for Congress, * a political committee; The Natural Law * Party of Iowa, a political committee; * Edward T. Rusk, of the Working Class * Party; Michael Cuddehe; Michael * Dimick; Rogers Badgett; Peter * Lamoureux; Fred Gratzon; Susan * Marcus, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Iowa Public Television, a state agency; * Daniel K. Miller, in official capacity, * * Appellees. *

___________ ORDER Filed: July 30, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG , WOLLMAN, MAGILL, BEAM, LOKEN, HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, en banc.

___________ MAGILL, Circuit Judge.The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern 1 District of Iowa. -2- In t he autumn of 1996, Iowa Public Television (IPTV), a government-owne d public television broadcaster, scheduled a series of joint appearances betwee n Democratic and Republican candidates for se ats in the U.S. House of Representatives. IPTV did not allow various third-party candidates for those seats to appear with th e major-party candidates because it did n ot consider them to be newsworthy. The thirdparty c andidates brought this suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief allowin g thei r appearance on the IPTV broadcasts, and the district court denied relief. Se e 1 Marcus v . Iowa Pub. Television , No. 4-96-CV-80690, 1996 WL 764143, at *4 (S.D. Iowa Oct. 9, 1996). The third- party candidates appealed, and in the interim sought an emergency injunction from this Court. We denied interim relief, see Marcus v. Iowa Pub. Television , 97 F.3d 1137, 1138 (8th Cir. 1996), and now affirm the district court. This case is controlled by the Supreme Court's decis ion in Arkansas Educational Televi sion Commission v. Forbes , 118 S. Ct. 1633 (1998). In Forbes , the Suprem e Court held that a political candidate debate progr am produced by a government-owned public tele vision broadcaster was a non-public forum, see id. at 1643, and that th e broad castercould therefore limit participation in such a debate program where th e limitation was viewpoint neutral and reasonable. See id. In this case, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the third-party candidates were not excluded on the basis of viewpoint, see Marcus , 1996 WL 764143, at *2, and we conclude that thei r exclusion was otherwise reasonable. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BNY Mellon,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. 5:14−cv−14526−JCO−MJH

Hon. John Corbett OMeara

Usir N. El Bey,

Defendant(s),

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF MOTION

WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT

 The following motion(s) have been filed:

Motion for Writ of Mandamus − #10

Motion to Dismiss − #13

Motion to Strike − #16

Motion − #18

Motion − #20

 Pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan LR 7.1(f)(2), the motion(s) will be determined by

District Judge John Corbett O'Meara without oral argument.

 Response and reply briefs shall be filed in accordance with Eastern District of Michigan LR

7.1(e).

 Courtesy copies shall be provided directly to chambers as soon as possible.

Certificate of Service

 I hereby certify that this Notice was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of

record were served.

By: s/W. Barkholz 

Case Manager

Dated: January 15, 2015

5:14-cv-14526-JCO-MJH Doc # 24 Filed 01/15/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 901
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.

§ 154.519 Piping relief valves. ( a ) The liquid relief valve that protects the cargo piping system from liquid pressure exceeding the design pressure must discharge into: ( 1 ) A cargo tank; or
( 2 ) A cargo vent mast if that vent mast has a means for the detection and removal of the liquid cargo that is specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG).
( b ) A relief valve on a cargo pump that protects the cargo piping system must discharge into the pump suction.
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
#### § 708.12 Statute of limitations.

If a debt has been outstanding for more than 10 years after the agency's right to collect the debt first accrued, the agency may not collect by salary offset unless facts material to the government's right to collect were not known and could not reasonably have been known by the official or officials who were charged with the responsibility for discovery and collection of such debts.
# CITY_Of_CORDOVA

January 22, 2013 Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis Office ofAviationAnalysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200New JerseyAve., S.E. WashingtonD.C. 20590**!,'.,:···~** ... ·••:• Re: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at**Cordova,~** Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, andYakutat, Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 DearMr. DeVany: This letter is to express strong support for the selection ofAlaska Airlines to continue to provide essential air service to our community. Alaska's service connects Cordova passengers to one or more major communities of interest, with single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, and Seattle. From these hubs, our community can access the airline's extensive route system and benefit from its marketing relationships with other carriers. The passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Airlines proposes to continue using onthis route, provides freight, mail and cargo capacitythat other carriers simply cannotprovide. Further, Alaska Airlines aircraft are equipped with Required Navigation Performance Technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in tum, enabling people and products to dependably reachthe com.111unity. Simply put, Alaska Airlines' service is critical to the economic well being of our community and I support their application to provide Essential Air Service to Southeast Alaska.

Ji Kallander, Mayor CityofCordova

602 Railroad Avenue P.O. Box 1210 Cordova. Alaska 99574 Telephone (907) 424·6200 Fax(907) 424·6000
#### § 174.240 Applicability.

Each liftboat inspected under subchapter L of this chapter must comply with this subpart.
----

The Kahului dredged material disposal site is located inshore (south) of a breach in a submerged 400-m reef.  See Plate 5 for details of the submarine topography and compare to the backscatter maps shown in Figure 18 and Plate 6.  Shoaling from disposal activities is not evident on the multibeam data.  Sun Illumination:  Azimuth: 345 degrees; Angle 45 degrees.

*go to larger versionof Figure 17 (3.5MB)**go to metadata for this field activity, A-1-98-HW*

----

----

----

SusanA. Cochran

U.S. Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,Western RegionCoastal and Marine Geology
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

April 15, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with Volvo

FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 between Volvo, 

EPA, and DOT. The attendees included:

Volvo: Tony Greszler, Joe Schmidt, and Tim Suder

EPA: Byron Bunker, Cle Jackson, Angela Cullen, Chuck Moulis, Allen Duncan, and

Houshun Zhang.

DOT: Coralie Cooper

The discussion focused on the 2011 baseline for manufacturers that choose the alternative engine 

standard. Specifically, we discussed the potential for manufacturers to establish an artificially

high 2011 baseline standard in order to game the alternative engine standard. Also discussed 

were approaches to prevent this potential problem, such as in-use confirmatory testing.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 234]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 2494]]

Public Law 111-234
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the annex building under construction for the Elbert P. 
 Tuttle United States Court of Appeals Building in Atlanta, Georgia, as 
the ``John C. Godbold Federal Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 16, 2010 -  [H.R. 
                                4275]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The annex building under construction for the United States 
courthouse located at 56 Forsyth Street in Atlanta, Georgia, known as 
the Elbert P. Tuttle United States Court of Appeals Building, shall be 
known and designated as the ``John C. Godbold Federal Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the annex building referred to in section 
1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John C. Godbold Federal 
Building''.

    Approved August 16, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4275:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111-444 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Apr. 14, considered and passed House.
            Aug. 5, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```