alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 18.1



Indianapolis Power & Light Company
One Monument Circle, P.O. Box 1595 
Indianapolis, IN 46206


We have audited the financial statements of Indianapolis Power & Light Company
as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for each of the three years in the 
period ended December 31, 1997, included in your Annual Report on Form 10-K to 
the Securities and Exchange Commission and have issued our report thereon dated
January 23, 1998.  Note 3 to such financial statements contains a description
of your adoption during the year ended December 31, 1997, of the method of 
accounting for accrued revenues for services provided but unbilled at the end
of each month.  In our judgment, such change is to an alternative accounting
principle that is preferable under the circumstances.



Deloitte & Touche, LLP

January 23, 1998
Exhibit 12.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Frans Spaargaren, ChiefFinancial Officer of Gemplus International S.A.,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Gemplus InternationalS.A.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered bythis annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting ; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control overfinancial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and reportfinancial information, and b) any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date:June 30, 2004    /s/ Frans Spaargaren   Frans Spaargaren Chief Financial Officer
No. 57969.

protest 215092-K (New York).

#### Rubin Bros. Waste Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the one bale of wool rags reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest is sustained .to this extent.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Flagship Global Health, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three and nine month periods ended September
      30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Philip E. Barak, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;




(1)
                  The Form 10-QSB
        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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
        financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                November 13,
                2007By: /s/ Philip E. BarakPhilip
                E. Barak, Chief Financial
                Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDGAR MITCHELL, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : No. 05-4073

:

MG INDUSTRIES, INC., et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2011, it is ORDERED:

• Defendants Messer Griesheim Industries, Inc./ALIG LLC (MG), L’Air Liquide S.A.,

Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP, and Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (Document 144) is GRANTED;

• Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Based on Spoliation of Evidence (Document 132) is

DENIED as moot;

• Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Reply Letter Brief re Statute of Limitations

Defense (Document 208) is GRANTED;

• Plaintiffs’ Third Motion to Certify Class and to Vacate June 9, 2009 Order Reversing

Initial Certification of Collective Class (Document 209) is DENIED as moot; and

• Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Reply to Opposition to Motion to Vacate Out of

Time Motion (Document 220) is DENIED as moot.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Juan R. Sánchez 

Juan R. Sánchez, J.

Case 2:05-cv-04073-JS Document 222 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 10960)

#### Modern Upholstered Chair Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5889.

(Decided April 20, 1965)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

'When this case was called for trial, it was submitted for decision upon written application of plaintiff without objection by counsel for defendant.

An examination of the official papers in this case fails to disclose sufficient evidence to rebut the presumptively correct value returned by the appraiser. Such value is, therefore, held to be the value of the merchandise covered by this appeal for reappraisement.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1447 

To reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2017 

Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the diesel emissions reduction program, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Diesel Emissions Re5 duction Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUC7 TION PROGRAM. 

8 Section 797(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

9 U.S.C. 16137(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘2016’’ and in10 serting ‘‘2022’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1447 IS

1 SEC. 3. RECOGNIZING DIFFERENCES IN DIESEL VEHICLE, 

2 ENGINE, EQUIPMENT, AND FLEET USE. 

3 (a) NATIONAL GRANT, REBATE, AND LOAN PRO4 GRAMS.—Section 792(c)(4)(D) of the Energy Policy Act 

5 of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16132(c)(4)(D)) is amended by insert6 ing ‘‘, recognizing differences in typical vehicle, engine, 

7 equipment, and fleet use throughout the United States’’ 

8 before the semicolon. 

9 (b) STATE GRANT, REBATE, AND LOAN PRO10 GRAMS.—Section 793(b)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 

11 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16133(b)(1)) is amended— 

12 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

13 and inserting a semicolon; and 

14 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(D) the recognition, for purposes of im16 plementing this section, of differences in typical 

17 vehicle, engine, equipment, and fleet use 

18 throughout the United States, including ex19 pected useful life; and’’. 

20 SEC. 4. REALLOCATION OF UNUSED STATE FUNDS. 

21 Section 793(c)(2)(C) of the Energy Policy Act of 

22 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16133(c)(2)(C)) is amended beginning 

23 in the matter preceding clause (i) by striking ‘‘to each re24 maining’’ and all that follows through ‘‘this paragraph’’ 

25 in clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘to carry out section 792’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
No. 48425.

#### Protests 843603-G(A), etc., of Bunce Allen, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 4.8

SUMMARY OF KIBBUTZ DEBT AGREEMENT

Following the difficulties experienced by the kibbutzim in Israel and the
organizations affiliated with them during the 1980's, several agreements were
entered into between the years 1989-1999 in which the parties were the kibbutz
movements, the creditor-banks and the State of Israel.

The purpose of these agreements was to reorganize the debt of the kibbutzim and
the organizations affiliated with them and to conform it to their actual
repayment ability. The agreements include a detailed and complex apparatus to
handle these debts. Within this framework, it was established that the kibbutzim
which were defined as assisted kibbutzim (those requiring assistance) shall be
entitled to refunds of certain interest differentials for unpaid credit which
they were granted by the banks who were parties to the agreement, to a waiver of
part of these credits and to long-term rescheduling of the remainder.

The government financed 35% of the waivers and deposited funds with the banks to
serve as a source for the rescheduling. Kibbutzim that were defined as owners of
real estate having the potential for development, were required pursuant to
these agreements to assign their rights in the land in consideration for a
portion of the waivers that were approved for them.

See Note 4 to our financial statements in Item 17 of this annual report for
further details of the Kibbutz debt agreement.
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 1 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 2 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 3 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 4 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 5 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 6 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 7 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 8 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 9 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 10 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 11 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 12 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 13 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 14 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 15 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 16 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 17 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 18 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 19 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 20 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 21 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 22 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 23 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 24 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 25 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 26 of 27
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 44 Filed 07/21/2003 Page 27 of 27
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Husky Energy Inc. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alister Cowan, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, 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 the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: March 8, 2013    
|                       
|/s/ Alister Cowan      
|Alister Cowan          
|Chief Financial Officer
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 92

Note 10. Accounts Payable

Accounts Payable as of September 30, 2017, and 2016

(In billions of dollars) 2017 2016

Department of Defense ............................................................................................... 26.4 18.3

Department of Justice ................................................................................................. 6.0 6.2

Department of Education............................................................................................. 4.2 4.0

Department of the Treasury ......................................................................................... 3.9 4.4

Department of Energy ................................................................................................. 3.7 3.6

Department of Veterans Affairs .................................................................................... 3.6 4.8

General Services Administration .................................................................................. 2.8 2.4

Department of State.................................................................................................... 2.7 2.5

Department of Homeland Security................................................................................ 2.3 2.0

U.S. Agency for International Development................................................................... 1.8 1.7

Tennessee Valley Authority ......................................................................................... 1.8 1.5

Department of Agriculture............................................................................................ 1.8 1.9

U.S. Postal Service ..................................................................................................... 1.6 1.8

All other...................................................................................................................... 8.2 7.3

Total accounts payable ............................................................................................. 70.8 62.4

 Accounts payable includes amounts due for goods and property ordered and received, services rendered by other than 

federal employees, cancelled appropriations for which the U.S. government has contractual commitments for payment, and 

non-debt related interest payable.
Pro se petitioner filed objections to the Report and 1

Recommendation. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate

Judge Smith provided a thorough and complete discussion

concerning the untimeliness of petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus

under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(AEDPA). Petitioner’s conviction became final in 1988 and the

one-year, post-AEDPA grace period expired in 1999. Petitioner,

however, did not file his habeas petition until February 2005. 

Petitioner objects to Magistrate Judge Smith’s

conclusion that, in these circumstances, the unavailability of

state court records does not constitute “extraordinary

circumstances” warranting equitable tolling. See Miller v. N.J.

Dep’t of Corr., 145 F.3d 616, 618 (3d Cir. 1998). (Report &

Recommendation 6-7.) 

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Smith. 

Petitioner has failed to identify what records he is referring to

and does not demonstrate how the absence of these records

prevented him from timely filing his federal habeas petition. In

any event, records or transcripts are not necessary to file a §

2254 habeas petition. The form for habeas corpus applications is

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID WOODS, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Petitioner, : NO. 05-723

:

v. :

:

JAMES L. GRACE, ET AL., :

:

Respondents. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2006, upon

consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith (doc. no. 7) and petitioner’s

objections (doc. no. 9), it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and

Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

1

Case 2:05-cv-00723-ER Document 10 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 2
designed with the incarcerated, pro se petitioner in mind. Only

basic information is required to preserve a habeas claim. In

sum, petitioner is simply unable to point to any extraordinary

circumstances entitling him to equitable tolling. 

2

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. no. 1), is

DENIED and DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there is no probable cause

to issue a certificate of appealability.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 S/Eduardo C. Robreno 

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00723-ER Document 10 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 2
March 28, 2011

Submitted By Mail

Chief, Documentary Services Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: PrivaJet Ltd, Docket DOT-OST-200 2 -12556

Attached please find the De signation of Agent for Service of Notice, Process,

Orders, Decisions and Requirements fo rm of PrivaJet Ltd (“PrivaJet”).

Respectfully Submitted,

Joanne W. Young

David M. Kirstein

Counsel for PrivaJet Ltd

Attachment
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GUADALUPE P. PEREZ,

 Appellant,

v.

OLD WEST CAPITAL CO., Assignee of 

Hudson & Keyse, L.L.C.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-12-00037-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of Tarrant County, Texas 

(TC#2007-058909-3-A)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and her sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
# C_2018152EN.01003001.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2018 — Crocs v EUIPO — Gifi Diffusion (Footwear)

(Case T-651/16) (1)

1

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing footwear - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of novelty - Disclosure prior to the priority date - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Additional evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal - Articles 5, 7 and Article 63(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2018/C 152/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Crocs, Inc. (Niwot, Colorado, United States) (represented by: H. Seymour, L. Cassidy, J. Guise and D. Knight, Solicitors, N. Hadjadj Cazier, M. Berger and H. Haouideg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gifi Diffusion (Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France) (represented by: C. de Chassey, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 (Case R 853/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gifi Diffusion and Crocs.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Crocs, Inc. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Gifi Diffusion in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Crocs, Inc. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Gifi Diffusion in the proceedings before the General Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

1

---
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-02276-JS Document 32 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 13 of 13