alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This certification is filed as Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Barry L. Lazarus, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inland Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)	presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

a)	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

|Date:	May 8, 2003      
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ BARRY L. LAZARUS   
|                       
|By:		Barry L. Lazarus  
|Chief Financial Officer
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000141

22-AUG-2019

09:03 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0001007800
<NAME> SIPEX CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          23,887
<SECURITIES>                                    16,192
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                       788
<INVENTORY>                                     20,489
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,394
<PP&E>                                          38,436
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,801
<BONDS>                                          7,560
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           248
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,348
<SALES>                                         75,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,289
<CGS>                                           45,338
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,628
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   616
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,488
<INCOME-TAX>                                       930
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,418
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,418
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAFINKA STOJCEVSKI,

as Personal Representative

of the Estate of DAVID STOJCEVSKI, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-11019

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker

COUNTY OF MACOMB, et al.,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER

On September 30, 2019, this Court issued an Opinion and Order disposing 

of several dispositive motions filed by Defendants. (See ECF No. 186.) Upon 

review of the decision, it appears that while summary judgment was granted to the 

following Defendants, the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against them and their 

removal as parties was omitted: Natalie Pacitto, Amber Barber, Linda Parton, 

Thressa Williams, and Sarah Breen. (See id. at Pg ID 6986, 6973.) Therefore, the 

Court is now disposing of those Defendants as parties.

Further, the Court neglected to discuss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 

Heather Ehrlich in its decision. But then again, so did Plaintiff in responding to the 

motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Ehrlich and other defendants. 

(See ECF No. 158.) As Plaintiff did not set forth any arguments for why Ehrlich 

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 261, PageID.11232 Filed 09/22/21 Page 1 of 2
should be found to have been deliberately indifferent to David’s serious medical 

needs, Plaintiff can be deemed to have abandoned the claims against her. See

McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir. 1997) (explaining that 

“[i]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at 

developed argumentation, are deemed waived.”); see also Courser v. Mich. House 

of Representatives, 831 F. App’x 161, 177-78 (6th Cir. 2020) (concluding that the 

plaintiff abandoned several claims by failing to make any arguments or “developed 

argumentation” concerning them).

In any event, Ehrlich’s involvement with David was limited to performing a 

COWS assessment during his first and second days at the jail. (See ECF No. 186 

at Pg ID 6950.) The record does not reflect facts from which a reasonable juror 

could conclude that David exhibited signs of a serious medical condition when 

Ehrlich interacted with him so as to make her subjectively aware of the need for 

more care than she provided. The Court, therefore, is now granting summary 

judgment to Ehrlich and dismissing her as a party from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Linda V. Parker

LINDA V. PARKER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 22, 2021

Case 4:15-cv-11019-LVP-DRG ECF No. 261, PageID.11233 Filed 09/22/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

                In connection with the Quarterly Report of Evercel,Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Anthony P. Kiernan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                1)             The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

                2)             The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Anthony P. Kiernan_________________________Anthony P. KiernanChief Financial OfficerAugust 14, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.050-13 Factory production and inspection. ( a ) Equipment manufactured under Coast Guard approval must be of the type described in the current certificate of approval issued for the equipment.
( b ) Equipment manufactured under Coast Guard approval is not inspected on a regular schedule at the place of manufacture. However, the Commanding Officer, USCG Marine Safety Center, may detail Coast Guard personnel at any time to visit a factory where the equipment is manufactured to conduct an inspection of the manufacturing process.
[44 FR 53359, Sept. 13, 1979, as amended by USCG-2001-10224, 66 FR 48621, Sept. 21, 2001]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2192]



[[Page 25324]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, April 
27, 2007, 1 p.m. to April 27, 2007, 3 p.m., National Institutes of 
Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in 
the Federal Register on April 23, 2007, FR <greek-i>07-2037.
    The meeting will be held on 4/26/2007 from 2-3 p.m. The meeting is 
closed to the public.

    Dated: April 26, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2192 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
1 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TREMAIN JONES (#412981), 

Plaintiff, 

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-13153 

JUDGE LINDA V. PARKER 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANTHONY P. PATTI 

 v. 

LYNN PARRISH, et al., 

Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 

(DE 46) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s September 15, 2015 motion for oral 

argument (DE 46), wherein Plaintiff asks that the Court schedule oral argument on 

the merits of Plaintiff’s complaint (DE 1), Defendants’ motions to sever (DEs 13 

and 16), Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and a permanent injunction (DE 17), 

Plaintiff’s response to the motions to sever (DE 24) and the report and 

recommendation regarding the motions to sever and motion for injunctive relief 

(DE 41). (See DE 46 ¶ 7.) 

On September 25, 2015, Judge Parker entered an opinion and order (DE 48) 

granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motions to sever (DEs 13, 16 & 

4:14-cv-13153-LVP-APP Doc # 50 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 968
2 

40), dismissing without prejudice certain claims and defendants, and denying 

Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and a permanent injunction (DE 17). In addition, 

Judge Parker adopted my reports and recommendations (DEs 41, 42). (See DE 48 

at 4-5.) Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff’s September 15, 2015 motion (DE 46) is 

a motion for oral argument on Plaintiff’s September 15, 2015 objection (DE 45) to 

my August 12, 2015 report and recommendation (DE 41), it is DENIED AS 

MOOT. This is so, because the Court has already ruled upon the underlying 

motions to sever (DEs 13, 16 & 40) and motion for a TRO and a permanent 

injunction (DE 17). 

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff’s September 15, 2015 motion (DE 46) seeks 

oral argument on his August 14, 2014 complaint (DE 1), it is DENIED. 

Following the Court’s September 25, 2015 opinion and order (DE 48), only thirteen 

(13) of the original fifty-two (52) defendants remain. The Court will issue a case 

management scheduling order forthwith, during which time the parties will be free 

to argue the merits of the remaining claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dates: October 1, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on October 1, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

4:14-cv-13153-LVP-APP Doc # 50 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 969
Editorial Note on Part 161
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 161 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 161.006-2 Type. ( a ) The motor lifeboat searchlight shall be of the incandescent type equipped with a lamp of approximately 90 watts of proper voltage for use with the electric power installation of the lifeboat, usually a 12-volt radio storage battery.
( b ) [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EXCITE
INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       15,374
<SECURITIES>                                 16,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                20,278
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             54,324
<PP&E>                                       20,627
<DEPRECIATION>                              (7,949)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               73,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        27,289
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                     813
<COMMON>                                    121,060
<OTHER-SE>                                 (85,134)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 73,430
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             50,151
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                19,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             60,087
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            1,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (30,159)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (30,159)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (30,159)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (2.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (2.18)


</TABLE>
# C_2014395EN.01000901.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v GMAC UK plc

(Case C-589/12) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11C(1), first subparagraph - Direct effect - Reduction of the taxable amount - Two transactions concerning the same goods - Supply of goods - Cars, sold on a hire purchase basis, repossessed and sold at auction - Abuse of rights))

(2014/C 395/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant: GMAC UK plc

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 11C(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, a Member State may not prevent a taxable person from invoking the direct effect of that provision in respect of one transaction by arguing that that person may rely on the provisions of national law in relation to another transaction concerning the same goods and that the cumulative application of those provisions would produce an overall fiscal result which neither national law nor Sixth Directive 77/388, applied separately to those transactions, produces or is intended to produce.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

---
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 ON MOTION HEARING 

 On December 19, 2018, the Court held a hearing on three pending motions in 

this action: (1) Plaintiff’s “Request for Reconsideration of Order (Dkt. #534) 

Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 4 and 5 of Ford’s 

Complaint (Trade Secret Ownership)” (the “Reconsideration Motion”) (see ECF 

#538), (2) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Summary Judgment on Ford’s Claim for 

Declaratory Judgment of No Copyright Infringement, and on Defendants’ Copyright 

Infringement Claim” (the “Summary Judgment Motion”) (see ECF #528), and 

Defendants’ “Motion to Realign Parties” (the “Realignment Motion) (see ECF 

#546). 

 For the reasons stated on the record at the motion hearing, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that: 
2 

 The Reconsideration Motion (ECF #538) is DENIED. However, Plaintiff 

may file a second motion for reconsideration, as described on the record at the 

motion hearing, by no later than January 21, 2019. Defendants shall file a 

response brief to Plaintiff’s motion by no later than February 11, 2010. 

Plaintiff may file a reply brief by no later than February 18, 2019; 

 The Summary Judgment Motion (ECF #528) is TAKEN UNDER 

ADVISEMENT; and 

 The Realignment Motion is GRANTED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: December 20, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on December 20, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
#### COMMERCIAL CREDIT TRUST, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF APPELLANT, v. ALBERT BARBIER, TRADING, ETC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted October term, 1929

Decided December 2, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

For the plaintiff-appellant, *Green & Green.*

For the defendant-respondent, *Samuel C. Meyerson.*

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the First Judicial District Court of Morris County in favor of the defendant. The case was tried by the court without a jury, under an agreed stipulation of facts. The plaintiff demands: first, a Buick roadster and in case it cannot be returned, the plaintiff then demands $300 for its value and $100 as special damages for attorney’s fee, &c.

It would serve no useful purpose to review the facts, as set out in the agreed stipulation of facts. It is sufficient to say that on the merits, the judgment must be reversed, as there is nothing in the case to show by whose order or consent, or at whose request the defendant Albert Barbier did the repairs or work on the car, then too, under the Conditional Sales act, if the conditional vendor gets the contract on file within ten days he is ahead of the garage keeper. See *Thayer, &c., Co.*v. *First National Bank,*98 *N. J. L.*29; *affirmed, Ibid,.*907. The judgment of the First Judicial District Court of Morris County is therefore reversed.
December 23, 1996

                                                                 (logo) EDS

                       Consumer Asset Management Division
                       of Electronic Data Systems Corporation
                       Management Report



The  management of the Consumer  Asset  Management  Division of Electronic  Data
Systems  Corporation  (the Division) has the  responsibility  for the Division's
compliance  with  the  minimum  servicing  standards  in  the  Mortgage  Bankers
Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS
(the USAP) for the nine months ended September 30, 1996 and for establishing and
maintaining  an  effective  internal  control  structure  over  compliance.   In
addition,  as of and for the same period noted above, the Division had in effect
a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the amount of $ 10,000,000.

Management  has performed an evaluation of the  Division's  compliance  with the
requirements  and for the period  referred to above.  Based on this  assessment,
management  asserts that the division  has complied  with the minimum  servicing
requirements in the USAP for the nine months ended September, 1996.

Sincerely,
/s/ Samuel C. Brenize
Samuel C. Brenize
Executive Vice President
Consumer Asset Management Division
§ 197.486 Written report of casualty. The person-in-charge of a vessel or facility for which a notice of casualty was made under § 197.484 shall submit a report to the Officer-in-Charge, Marine Inspection, as soon as possible after the casualty occurs, as follows: ( a ) On Form CG-2692, when the diving installation is on a vessel.
( b ) Using a written report, in narrative form, when the diving installation is on a facility. The written report must contain the information required by § 197.484.
( c ) The report required by this section must be accompanied by a copy of the report required by § 197.410(a)(9) when decompression sickness is involved.
( d ) The report required by this section must include information relating to alcohol or drug involvement as required by § 4.05-12 of this chapter.
(The reporting requirement in paragraph (a) was approved by OMB under control number 1625-0001) [CGD 76-009, 43 FR 53683, Nov. 16, 1978, as amended by CGD 82-023, 47 FR 35748, Aug. 16, 1982; 48 FR 43328, Sept. 23, 1983; CGD 84-099, 52 FR 47536, Dec. 14, 1987; USCG-2006-25697, 71 FR 55747, Sept. 25, 2006]