alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.2**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 for theCompany’s Citizens First Savings Bank 401 (K) Plan (Registration No. 333-74218), the Citizens FirstBancorp, Inc. 2001 Stock-Based Incentive Plan (Registration No. 333-98199) and the Citizens FirstBancorp, Inc. Management Restricted Stock Purchase Plan (Registration Nos. 333-100516 and333-122417) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 for the Citizens First Bancorp, Inc.Dividend Reinvestment and Optional Cash Purchase Plan (Registration No. 333-122417) of our reportdated February 14, 2003 on the financial statements of Citizens First Bancorp, Inc. for the ninemonths ended December 31, 2002 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K (File No. 0-32041) forthe year ended December 31, 2004.
/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC
Auburn Hills, Michigan
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Spectra Energy Capital, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory L. Ebel, President and Chief Executive Officer of Spectra Energy Capital, LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Spectra Energy Capital, LLC.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Gregory L. Ebel                  
|                      |  | Gregory L. Ebel                      
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARIA A. MONTEVERDE, : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 02-cv-4214

:

Plaintiff, :

:

vs. :

:

PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES :

CORPORATION, :

:

Defendant. :

MOTION OF PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL FOR

LEAVE TO WITHDRAW FROM REPRESENTATION

Plaintiff’s counsel, Sidney L. Gold, Esquire, of the Law Offices of Sidney L.

Gold & Associates, P.C., brings this Motion of Plaintiff’s Counsel for Leave to Withdraw

his representation as counsel for the Plaintiff, Maria A. Monteverde, in the abovecaptioned matter and in support thereof avers as follows:

1. On or about June 24, 2002, Plaintiff entered into an attorney-client

relationship with the law firm of Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C., to represent her in a

discrimination claim against the Defendant.

2. On June 27, 2002, counsel filed a Complaint in this court on behalf of the 

Plaintiff with respect to said claim.

3. Thereafter, on May 20, 2003, the Plaintiff discharged her counsel, Sidney L.

Gold & Associates, P.C., from further representation in this matter. In connection thereto,

Case 2:02-cv-04214-MAM Document 17 Filed 05/22/2003 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Plaintiff informed Sidney L. Gold, Esquire that she has since retained new counsel to

represent her in this matter.

4. Shortly thereafter, counsel for the Plaintiff made several attempts to contact 

Plaintiff’s new counsel by telephone in an effort to discuss the aforesaid. To date, we

have not received a response.

5. Plaintiff’s counsel therefore moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the

Plaintiff in this action. (See Notice of Withdrawal sent to client on this date, attached

hereto as Exhibit “A.”)

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter the proposed

Order attached hereto, granting the Motion of Plaintiff’s Counsel for Leave to Withdraw

from Representation in this matter.

 SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

BY:_______________________

 SIDNEY L. GOLD, ESQUIRE

 Attorney I.D. No. 21374

 515 Eleven Penn Center

 1835 Market Street

 Philadelphia, PA 19103

 (215) 569-1999

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:02-cv-04214-MAM Document 17 Filed 05/22/2003 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of GMX
Resources Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date:  August 1, 2006                  /s/ Ken L. Kenworthy, Sr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Ken L. Kenworthy, Sr.
                                       Chief Financial Officer
No. 56308.

protests 177485-K and 177461-K (New York).

#### Dreher Bros. & Wider, Inc., and Wm. V. Schmidt Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2018022EN.01001501.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Gasorba SL, Josefa Rico Gil, Antonio Ferrándiz González v Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA

(Case C-547/16) (1)

1

((Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Agreements between undertakings - Business relationships between service station operators and oil companies - Long-term exclusive supply agreement for fuel - European Commission decision making an undertaking’s commitments binding - Extent to which national courts are bound by a commitment decision adopted by the Commission - Articles 9(1) and 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003))

(2018/C 022/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Gasorba SL, Josefa Rico Gil, Antonio Ferrándiz González

Applicants:

Defendant: Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that a commitment decision concerning certain agreements between undertakings, adopted by the European Commission under Article 9(1) of that regulation, does not preclude national courts from examining whether those agreements comply with the competition rules and, if necessary, declaring those agreements void pursuant to Article 101(2) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

1

---
TT4h

d
Northern Trust Bank \ ae

\ fay
700 Brickell Avenue, Mam Ante 372-1000
August 16, 1999 ay)
Cynthia L. Johnson, Director

Cash Management Policy & Planning Division
Financial Management Service

Room 420

401 14" Street, SW

Washington, DC 20227

Dear Ms. Johnson:

Today we received a proposed amendment to the Treasury Tax & Loan rate of
interest. You will probably not be surprised if I respond that we are not in favor of this
increase.

We currently use the Note Option because there is a slight cost advantage to us. We
are currently able to raise funds at 25 basis points below Fed funds on roughly four
million dollars. If this small benefit were eliminated we would change to the remittance
option and replace the lost TT&L funds with Fed funds purchases. It simply would not
be sensible for us to continue to meet the record keeping and pledging requirements while
paying a market rate for the funds. We are an affiliate of the Northern Trust Corporation
and can easily access the Fed funds market.

We would not have any interest in term TT&L balances. Please contact me if you
have any further questions.

Yours truly,

ty ~tgt

H. James Sigsbee
Senior Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer

ttl.doc

The Private Bank

Norther Trust of Florida Corporation and Northern Trust Bank of Florida N.A. are wholly owned subsidiaries of Northern Trust Corporation, Chicago.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD and ELLEN BRIDGE :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4240

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04240-MK Document 7 Filed 09/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 5, 2022*

Decided August 15, 2022 

Before 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 21-3071 

LOGAN A. OWSLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MARK E. GORBETT, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the Southern 

District of Indiana, 

Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:15-cv-00552-RLY-MJD 

Richard L. Young, Judge. 

 O R D E R 

Logan Owsley contends that defendants lost or destroyed evidence that could 

have been the basis of a suit in state court, in which several persons would have been 

accused of murdering his father, Cary Owsley. In this federal suit, Logan maintains that 

spoliation of evidence creates a claim (denial of access to the courts) actionable under 42 

U.S.C. §1983 and related statutes. 

The district court initially dismissed Logan’s suit for lack of standing. We held 

that Logan has standing and that any deficiency in this claim concerns the merits rather 

*

 We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record 

adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the court. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 
No. 21-3071 Page 2 

than justiciability. 960 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2020). On remand, the district court ruled in 

defendants’ favor on the merits. 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218608 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 3, 2021). 

The district court gave two principal reasons. 

First, defendants did not do anything that prevented Logan from recognizing the 

existence of a legal claim and filing suit on it. To the contrary, Logan concluded almost 

immediately that his father had been murdered and quickly decided who was at fault 

(his stepmother, the stepmother’s two sons, and a relative who was a deputy sheriff). 

The state courts were open to a suit based on that claim. Spoliation of evidence might 

have hampered recovery, but spoliation is the basis of an adverse inference—and it 

would have been no greater hindrance to recovery in state court than to proving 

damages in Logan’s federal suit. 

Second, Logan’s claim rests on an assignment from Cary’s Estate. This means 

that a foundational question is whether spoliation of evidence frustrated the Estate’s 

ability to litigate in state court. The unambiguous answer to that question is “no.” The 

Estate, with Cary’s wife Lisa as executor, did not want to litigate. Instead Lisa told both 

Logan and the state judiciary that Cary had committed suicide. Logan asked state 

judges to appoint him as the executor in Lisa’s stead, to facilitate litigation of a murder 

claim; Indiana’s courts declined. 

So when the Estate assigned to Logan whatever access-to-courts claim it had, it 

did not transfer a winnable claim. Because the Estate neither wanted to litigate against 

the supposed wrongdoers, nor was prevented from doing so, Logan loses on the merits, 

just as the district judge concluded. 

AFFIRMED
Justification for why both CFR Citation and Instrument are not applicable

This ICR derives its mandate from an Act of Congress (Public Law 107-188), not 

an agency rulemaking, thus there is no applicable CFR citation. Though Congress 

outlined requirements for the Vulnerability Assessments and Certification of VA’s and 

Emergency Response Plans covered by this ICR, there is standard instrument associated 

with these documents. Accordingly, neither can be provided to OMB with this ICR 

package.
Before the Second Division,

November 12, 1953

No. 57615.

#### Artgift Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 175933-K (B) (New York).

Opinion by

LaweEncb, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question consists of a manufactured, finished article, in *299which the component material of chief value is a compound of cellulose acetate, not specially provided for, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit
10.15


 


CONSENT
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF


ELECTROMEDICAL
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


 


The
undersigned, Matthew N. Wolfson, being the sole director of Electromedical Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the “Company”),
hereby unanimously consent to the following actions taken on Company on October 11, 2019.


 


RESOLVED:
To issue Nikolai Ogorodnikov (“Ogorodnikov”) a total of 63,380 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock
in full and complete satisfaction of any and all claims which Ogorodnikov may have against the Company the pursuant to that certain
Promissory Note by and between Ogorodnikov and the Company dated October 31, 2013. The total amount owed to Ogorodnikov was $45,000
and the shares are valued at $0.71 per share.


 


RESOLVED:
That the Company’s transfer agent, Pacific Stock Transfer, is hereby authorized to issue the foregoing shares to Ogorodnikov
at the following address: 228 S. Doheny Dr., Apt. #4, Beverly Hills, CA 90211.


 


There
being no further business requiring board action or consideration, on motion duly made, and carried, the meeting was adjourned.


 








 



 


Matthew
N. Wolfson


Sole
Director
# C_2015337EN.01002901.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/29

---

Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Systran v Commission

(Case T-421/15)

(2015/C 337/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Systran SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Hoss, E. Omes and P. Hoffmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | join the present case with Case T-481/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

join the present case with Case T-481/13;

| — | annul the decision of 25 June 2015 taken by the European Commission, alternatively, by the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 25 June 2015 taken by the European Commission, alternatively, by the European Union;

| — | order the European Commission and the European Union to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission and the European Union to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision by which, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 April 2013 in Commission v Systran and Systran Luxembourg (C-103/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:245), it orders the recovery of compensatory interest, plus interest on late payment from 19 August 2013, on the amount that the Commission had paid to the applicant by way of damages following the judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission (T-19/07, ECR, EU:T:2010:526), annulled by the judgment of the Court of Justice.

Commission

Systran and Systran Luxembourg

Systran and Systran Luxembourg

Commission

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in the context of Case T-481/13, Systran v Commission
   (1).

Systran

Commission

1

---

(1)  OJ 2013, C 336, p. 27.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Support for Conferences and 
Scientific Meetings (Parent R13 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: December 5-7, 2023.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E71, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Lee G. Klinkenberg, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E71, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 301-761-7749, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#701c15155e1b1c191e1b151e12150217301e19185e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1cdc4c48fcacdc8cfcac4cfc3c4d3c6e1cfc8c98fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 2, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-24634 Filed 11-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      37,921,216
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,085,196
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                189,401,721
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,573,491
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,517,690
<LOANS>                                    794,698,934
<ALLOWANCE>                                  7,768,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,100,884,643
<DEPOSITS>                                 845,215,659
<SHORT-TERM>                               138,850,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          7,437,975
<LONG-TERM>                                 43,348,462
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    59,722,360
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,310,187
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,100,884,643
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             55,263,370
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            8,970,078
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                82,619
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            64,316,067
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          22,146,465
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,931,552
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       34,238,050
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                2,225,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             29,715,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,077,616
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   9,077,616
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,081,853
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.03
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,727,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   365,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             4,526,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             6,350,100
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  952,794
<RECOVERIES>                                   146,518
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            7,768,824
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         7,768,824
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
No. 49938.

#### Protest 111495-K of F. L. Kraemer & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination' of the official papers disclosed no reason for disturbing the finding of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
Sanitized – Attachment 015 

Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 971 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 971

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 28, 2018.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without 
intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
Res. 970) insisting that the Department of Justice fully comply with the 
requests, including subpoenas, of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
and the subpoena issued by the Committee on the Judiciary relating to potential 
violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by personnel of the 
Department of Justice and related matters. The resolution shall be considered as 
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and 
preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their 
respective designees.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```