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


Section
      1350 Certifications





**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned is the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Equicap, Inc. This
      Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002.
      This Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Equicap,
      Inc.
      for the year ended December 31, 2006.





The
      undersigned certifies that such 10-KSB Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that the information contained in such 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Equicap,
      Inc. as of December 31, 2006.





This
      Certification is executed as of February 23, 2007.





*By: /s/ Thomas W. Colligan**Name:
                Thomas W. Colligan**Title:
                Director, CEO, President and Treasurer*
              *(Principal
                Executive and Financial Officer)*


A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        us, Inc. and will be retained by Equicap, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Inland Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), I, James W. Kleifges, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S. C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, certify that to the best of my knowledge:(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/ James W. KleifgesBy:James W. KleifgesChief Financial OfficerDate:July 31, 2006
###### Editorial Note on Part 162

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 162.163-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of portable foam applicators, each consisting of a portable foam nozzle, eductor, pick-up tube, and a portable supply of foam concentrate, in ro-ro spaces and certain machinery spaces, as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, J. R. MCFARLANE, K.M. MCDONALD

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RONALD E. WAUGH , JR

PRIVATE FIRST CLASS (E

- 2), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201300465

SP E CI AL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 20 August 2013.

Military Judge: Col James Carberry, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 3 d M arine

Division

, Okinawa, Japan

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LtCol K.T.Carlisle,

USMC

. For Appellant: CDR Michael Pallesen, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

31 March 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

After care ful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

C lerk of Court
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10628 

 (consolidated with Case No. 15-11624) 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al.

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER CONFIRMING TRIAL SCHEDULE 

 On December 10, 2021, the Court held a video status conference with counsel 

to discuss a trial schedule in this matter. Following that conference, the Court 

conferred with the Court’s Jury Department and confirmed that trial will begin on 

Wednesday, March 2, 2022. The schedule shall be as follows: 

 Motions in limine to be filed by no later than January 5, 2022; 

 Responses to motions in limine to be filed no later than January 18, 2022; 

 Final Pre-Trial Conference and hearing on motions in limine to be held, in 

person, in the Detroit Courthouse, on Friday, February 4, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.; 

 Trial to commence on Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: December 13, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 796, PageID.56415 Filed 12/13/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on December 13, 2021, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764 

Case 2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 796, PageID.56416 Filed 12/13/21 Page 2 of 2
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-1242

Lower Tribunal No. 2015-CF-005839-A-O

_____________________________

DANIEL LEIJA,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Elaine A. Barbour, Judge.

February 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Daniel Tibbitt, of Daniel J. Tibbitt, P.A., North Miami, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
# STATEOF LOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT TIMOTHY COMANS VERSUS NO. 

### 2021 CW 0890 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, TIMBERLINE TRADING OF 

### FEBRUARY 23, 2022 MISSOURI, LLC AND MICHAEL GLOBE In Re: Cincinnati 

## Insurance Company, applying for supervisory writs, 

### 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 653413. BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., PENZATO AND HESTER, JJ.

WRIT DISMISSED. 

### This writ application 

### is dismissed 

## pursuant to relator' s voluntary motion to dismiss, which advised that the parties settled all claims and controversies 

### existing between them 

### in this matter and requested that this writ 

### application be dismissed. VGW AHP CHH



### COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

# Rifi 

# D PUTYCLERVOfCOURT FOR THE COURT
§ 169.857 Disclosure of safety standards. ( a ) This section applies to all sailing school vessels and all promotional literature or advertisements offering passage or soliciting sailing school students or instructors for voyages on sailing school vessels.
( b ) Each item of promotional literature or advertisement that offers passage or solicits students or instructors of voyages onboard a sailing school vessel must contain the following information: ( 1 ) The name of the vessel;
( 2 ) The country of registry;
( 3 ) A statement detailing the role and responsibility of a sailing school student or instructor; and
( 4 ) A statement that the vessel is inspected and certificated as a sailing school vessel and is not required to meet the same safety standards required of a passenger vessel on a comparable route.
( c ) Before getting underway the master shall ensure that each sailing school student, sailing school instructor, and guest, who has not previously been notified, is notified of the specialized nature of sailing school vessels and that the applicable safety requirements for these vessels are not the same as those applied to passenger vessels.
#### § 131.830 Fire-hose stations.

Each fire station must be identified in red letters and figures at least 50 millimeters (2 inches) high that state the following: “FIRE STATION #1,” “* * * 2,” “* * * 3,” and so on. Where the hose is not so stowed in the open or behind glass as to be readily seen, this identification must be so placed as to be readily seen from a distance.
§ 11.901 General provisions. ( a ) Where required by § 11.903 of this subpart, each applicant for an endorsement listed in that section must pass an examination on the appropriate subjects listed in this subpart.
( b ) If the endorsement is to be limited in a manner that would render any of the subject matter unnecessary or inappropriate, the examination may be amended accordingly by the Coast Guard. Limitations that may affect the examination content are as follows: ( 1 ) Restricted routes for reduced service officer endorsements (master or mate of vessels of less than 200 GRT, OUPV, or master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels).
( 2 ) Limitations to a certain class or classes of vessels.
( c ) Simulators used in assessments of competence required by subpart C of this part must meet the appropriate performance standards set out in Section A-I/12 of the STCW Code (incorporated by reference, see § 11.102 of this part). However, simulators installed or brought into use before February 1, 2002, need not meet these performance standards if they fulfill the objective of the assessment of competence or demonstration of proficiency.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

#### § 2.75-60 Hazardous ships' stores.

Hazardous ships' stores, as defined in § 147.3 of this chapter, must not be brought on board or used on any vessel unless they meet the requirements of part 147 of this chapter.

[CGD 84-044, 53 FR 7748, Mar. 10, 1988]
# C_2012126EN.01002602.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/26

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012 — AY v Council

(Case F-23/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 promotion exercise - Consideration of comparative merits - Failure to take into account further training and certification - Error of law)

2012/C 126/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AY (Bousval, Belgium) (represented initially by É. Boigelot and S. Woog, then by É. Boigelot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Council not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AST 9 in the 2010 promotion exercise and compensation for the non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union not to promote AY to grade AST 9 in the 2010 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union not to promote AY to grade AST 9 in the 2010 promotion exercise;

| 2. | declares that there is no need to adjudicate on AY’s alternative heads of claim; |
| --- | --- |

2.

declares that there is no need to adjudicate on AY’s alternative heads of claim;

| 3. | dismisses AY’s action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

dismisses AY’s action as to the remainder;

| 4. | orders the Council of the European Union to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

orders the Council of the European Union to pay all costs.

---

(1)  OJ 30.7.2011 C 226, p. 31.

1

---
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — Vivaio dei Molini Azienda Agricola Porro Savoldi

(Case C-502/11)**

Public works contracts – Directive 93/37/EEC – Article 6 – Principles of equal treatment and openness – Admissibility of rules reserving the right to participate in public tendering procedures to companies engaged in a commercial
activity and excluding civil partnerships (società semplici) – Institutional and statutory objectives – Agricultural undertakings

1.                     *Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Purpose (Council Directive
93/37) (see para. 31)*

2.                     *Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts – Tenderers – National legislation excluding candidates
of a certain legal form – Not permissible – Contactor – Notion – Classification not dependent on direct performance with the
contractor’s own resources, on its legal status and its systematic presence on the market (Council Directive 93/37) (see paras 32-35)*

3.                     *Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Exclusion from participation
in a contract – Limited nature of the list of causes set out in the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Directive – Power
of the Member Stes to provide for other means of exclusion – Conditions (Council Directive 93/37, Art. 24, first para.) (see
para 37-42)*

4.                     *Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public works contracts – Directive 93/37 – Exclusion from participation
in a contract – National legislation excluding individual agricultural undertakings engaged in commercial activities in the
form of civil partnerships – Not permissible (Council Directive 93/37, Art. 6) (see paras 47-51)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consiglio di Stato – Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) – Principle of non-discrimination – National legislation reserving the right to participate in public tendering procedures to companies engaged in a commercial activity and excluding agricultural undertakings in the form of civil partnerships (società semplici). |

**Operative part**

European Union law, in particular Article 6 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
procedures for the award of public works contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001, precludes
national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits an undertaking such as a civil partnership
having the status of ‘contractor’ within the meaning of Directive 93/37 from participating in public procurement procedures
solely on the ground of its legal form*.*
#### § 176.103 Description.

The Certificate of Inspection issued to a vessel describes the vessel, the route(s) that it may travel, the minimum manning requirements, the survival and rescue craft carried, the minimum fire extinguishing equipment and lifejackets required to be carried, the maximum number of passengers and total persons that may be carried, the number of passengers the vessel may carry in overnight accommodation spaces, the name of the owner and managing operator, any equivalencies accepted or authorized by the Commandant or any Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) in accordance with § 175.540 or § 175.550 of this chapter, and such other conditions of operations as may be determined by the cognizant OCMI.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

The Federal Communications Commission previously announced its intention to hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting has been postponed until 6:45 p.m. The prompt and orderly conduct of the Commission's business requires this change and no earlier announcement was practicable.

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary.

              Editorial Note            

#### Editorial Note:

This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on April 26, 2007.

[FR Doc. 07-2119 Filed 4-26-07; 12:47 pm]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
            CONSENT OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
  We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-07983 and No. 333-22763) on Form S-8 of Siebel Systems, Inc. of our report
dated January 17, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Siebel
Systems, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, and
the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1996, annual
report on Form 10-K of Siebel Systems, Inc.
 
                                              KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
 
San Jose, California
March 7, 1997
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000908 24-FEB-2016 08:00 AM
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: August 14, 2009
    /s/ Mark S. AllioMark S. AllioChairman of the Board, President
and Chief Executive Officer
### SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE 1

**20 2** **2 MT**  **128 ,**  **DA 2**  **1 -** **0 605**  **: BOARD OF REGENTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF**  **THE STATE**  **OF MONTANA** **,** Petitioner and Appellee, v. **THE STATE**  **OF MONTANA,**  **by and**  **th rough**  **Au stin**  **Knudsen, in**  **his official**  **capacity as**  **Attorney Ge** **neral of the State of Montana** **,** Respondent and Appellant

. The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that the Montana Board of Regents has the sole authority to set policy regarding the possession of firearms on the Montana University System property

. The unanimous Court held that the Montana Constitution specifically provides that government and control of the university system is vested in the Board of Regents, who shall have “full power, responsibility and authority to supervise, manage, and control” Montana’s universities and colleges

. This case arises from House Bill 102 (HB 102), enacted by the 2021 Legislature, which generally revised gun laws with respect to open and concealed carry of firearms. As it relates to the Board of Regents (Board) and the Montana University System (MUS), HB 102 nullified a Board policy that limited the use of and access to firearms on MUS campuses (Board Policy 1006). The Board sought a declaration from the District Court that HB 102 was unconstitutional as applied to the Board, the MUS, and the campuses of the MUS, because the Board was constitutionally vested with full responsibility to manage and control the MUS and its properties. The State argued that the Board did not have exclusive authority to regulate firearms on campuses. The District Court concluded that HB 102 violated the Board’s constitutional authority to regulate MUS campuses and thus was unconstitutional as applied to the Board. The State appealed. Answering the narrow issue on appeal

—the scope of the Board’s authority

—the Court held that campus safety and security is an integral responsibility of the Board of Regents’ constitutional authority.

1 This synopsis has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It constitutes no part of the Opinion of the Court and may not be cited as precedent. 06/29/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0605