alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.7

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Security Capital European Realty
Luxembourg

We have audited the consolidated statement of net assets of Security Capital
European Realty (the "Company") as at 31 December 1999 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statement of operations, the statement of changes in consolidated
net assets, the statement of changes in shares outstanding, the statement of
investments and the notes to the consolidated financial statements for each of
the years in the two year period ended 31 December 2000. These consolidated
financial statements are the responsibility of the Board of Directors of the
Company. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated
financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing
and auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those Standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements.
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by the Board of Directors, as well as evaluating the overall
consolidated financial statements presentation. We believe that our audit
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements described above give, in
conformity with Luxembourg legal and regulatory requirements, a true and fair
view of the financial position of Security Capital European Realty at 31
December 1999 and 2000 and the results of its operations and changes in net
assets for each of the years in the two year period ended 31 December 2000.

Accounting practices required by the Luxembourg legal and regulatory framework
vary in certain important respects from accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America. The application of the latter would have
affected the determination of the consolidated results of its operations
expressed in United States dollars for each of the years in the two year period
ended December 31, 2000 and the determination of shareholders' equity and
consolidated financial position also expressed in United States dollars at
December 31, 1999 and 2000 to the extent summarized in Note 19 to the
consolidated financial statements.

Supplementary information included in the annual financial report has been
reviewed in the context of our mandate but has not been subject to specific
audit procedures carried out in accordance with the standards described above.
Consequently, we express no opinion on such information. We have no observation
to make concerning such information in the context of the financial statements
taken as a whole.


PricewaterhouseCoopers S.a.r.l.             Luxembourg, 14 March 2001
Reviseur d'entreprises
Represented by



Pascal Rakovsky
Amaury Evrard
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 April 25, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-11373

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00119-CV-J-25MMH

MARITIME TUG & BARGE, INC., 

as owner of the M/V Isabelle C, for exoneration 

from or limitation of liability, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, 

A Member of Royal Specialty Underwriting, Inc., 

MARTIN K. EBY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(April 25, 2007)

Before CARNES, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

Maritime Tug & Barge, Inc. appeals from the judgment of the district court

dismissing with prejudice its 46 U.S.C. § 185 petition for exoneration from or

limitation of liability. It raises two issues. 

As to Maritime Tug’s contention that we should vacate the district court’s

judgment and instruct it to dismiss the petition without prejudice, we decline to do

so because of the way we interpret the words “with prejudice” in the judgment. 

The district court dismissed Maritime Tug’s § 185 petition because it had not been

filed within the six-month time period specified in the section. The dismissal

properly was with prejudice as to any future § 185 petition by Maritime Tug. The

district court, however, did not have before it a 46 U.S.C. § 183 affirmative

defense nor did it rule on the merits of the limitation of liability issue. 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment does not encompass the § 183 merits

issue, and we do not interpret it as being with prejudice as to that issue. Nor do

we interpret the district court’s judgment as implying any view on whether a state

court has jurisdiction to decide the § 183 merits issue; the state courts themselves

are quite capable of addressing issues involving their own jurisdiction. 

Maritime Tug also contends that the district court abused its discretion in

denying as futile the motion to amend the complaint. Insofar as the amended
3

complaint sought to reassert the § 185 petition, the district court properly denied

it. Insofar as the other claims that the motion to amend sought to assert, the

amendment may not have been futile. However, given the fact that a proceeding

involving those same claims is now pending in state court, it clearly would be

within the district court’s discretion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action in

favor of the state court proceeding. We have no doubt that if we remanded the

case with instructions to permit the motion to amend, that is what would happen. 

Accordingly, we decline to vacate the district court’s decision denying the motion

to amend. 

The bottom line of our decision is that the district court correctly dismissed

the § 185 petition without affecting any § 183 defense or other claim or defense

that may be asserted in the state court.

AFFIRMED.
#### GRAHAM v. WATERMAN.

No. 39337.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 228 So.2d 925.
----

Removal from the register of Case C-256/03 (1)

(2004/C 300/73)

By order of 25 August 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-256/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

----

(1)OJ C 184 du 2.8.2003.

----
Exhibit 32.2







VERSANT INTERNATIONAL,
INC.



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 Versant International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Young the Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (including subsections (a) (b) and (c) thereof), 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: August 20, 2012







| | /s/ Michael D. Young        
| | ----------------------------
| | Michael D. Young            
| | Principal Accounting Officer
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 GSP-2, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yushan Wei, Chief Executive Officer and 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), as applicable, 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: May 23, 2011
By:
/s/ Yushan WeiYushan Wei

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer

and Principal Accounting Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT BRIAN K. MORGAN, Petitioner

v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 61 WAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 23rd day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                              NATURAL WONDERS, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE NET LOSS
                                 (In thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Quarter Ended
                                                       -------------------------------------------
                                                          July 29, 2000           July 31, 1999
                                                          -------------------------------------
<S>                                                           <C>                   <C>
Net loss                                                      $(3,555)              $(3,959)
                                                               =======               =======

Weighted average common shares
       Outstanding, basic and diluted                            7,848                7,928

Per share net loss, basic and diluted                          $ (0.45)             $ (0.50)
                                                                 =====                =====
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Eduardo Cruz Ramirez v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-01096-CR

Trial court case number: 1793517

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

State’s Exhibit 9, a compact disc containing a legend for AT&T telephone records, was 

admitted into evidence at trial in the above case. This Court, acting sua sponte, orders the Harris 

County District Clerk, or the court reporter if the exhibit is still in his or her possession, to send 

the original of State’s Exhibit 9, a compact disc containing a legend for AT&T telephone 

records, to this Court. The Clerk of this Court is directed to cooperate with the district clerk and 

court reporter to provide for the safekeeping, transportation, and return of such exhibit. See Tex. 

R. App P. 34.6(g)(2).

The exhibit is due in this Court no later than July 3, 2013.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

Acting individually

Date: June 21, 2013
EXHIBIT 32

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 China Rising Star Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Mork, Chief Executive and 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, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  February 14, 2011
By  /s/ Jeremy Mork
-----------------------------
    Jeremy Mork
    Chief Executive and  Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
#### Morris, Appellee, *v.*City of Cleveland, Appellant.

(No. 30534

Decided December 19, 1945.)

*Mr. William F. Waldeisen*and *Mr. Ralph L. Bailey,*for appellee.

*Mr. Lee C. Howley,*director of law, *Mr. Joseph R. Crowley, Mr. James M. McSweeney*and *Mr. Clarence L. Mollison,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Bell, Williams, Turner, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1

                             MEDIA ARTS GROUP, INC.


                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       Jurisdiction of                        Ownership
         Name of subsidiary                            Incorporation                          percentage
----------------------------------                     --------------                         ----------

<S>                                                    <C>                                     <C>
Lightpost Publishing, Inc.                             USA (California)                            100%
Thomas Kinkade Stores, Inc.                            USA (California)                            100%
Thomas Kinkade Media, Inc.                             USA (California)                            100%
MAGI Sales, Inc.                                       USA (California)                            100%
</TABLE>
I

★

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3812

To require immediate action to remove sunken or grounded vessels that

obstruct navigable waterways.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 8, 1994

Mr. FIELDS of Texas (for himself and Mr. LAUGHLIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and

Transportation

A BILL

To require immediate action to remove sunken or grounded

vessels that obstruct navigable waterways.

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 ‘‘Waterways Obstruc5 tion Removal Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. OBSTRUCTION REMOVAL REQUIREMENT.

7 (a) Section 16 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat.

8 1153; 33 U.S.C. 411) is amended by—

9 (1) striking ‘‘and 409’’ and inserting ‘‘409,

10 414, and 415’’; and
2

HR 3812 IH1S

1 (2) striking the language ‘‘not exceeding $2500

2 nor less than $500’’ and inserting ‘‘of up to $25,000

3 per day’’.

4 (b) Section 20 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat.

5 1154; 33 U.S.C. 415) is amended by—

6 (1) striking the word ‘‘expense’’ where it first

7 appears in subsection (a) and subsection (b) and in8 serting ‘‘actual expense, including administrative ex9 penses’’;

10 (2) redesignating existing subsection (b) as sub11 section (c); and

12 (3) inserting a new subsection (b) to read as

13 follows:

14 ‘‘(b) REMOVAL REQUIREMENT.—Within twenty four

15 hours after the Secretary of the Department in which the

16 Coast Guard is operating issues an order to stop or delay

17 navigation in any navigable waters of the United States

18 because of conditions related to the sinking or grounding

19 of a vessel, the owner or operator of the vessel, with the

20 approval of the Secretary of the Army, shall begin removal

21 of the vessel using the most expeditious removal method

22 available; or if appropriate, secure the vessel pending re23 moval to allow navigation to resume. If the owner or oper24 ator fails to begin removal or to secure the vessel pending

25 removal, or fails to complete removal as soon as possible,
3

HR 3812 IH1S

1 the Secretary of the Army shall remove or destroy the ves2 sel using the summary removal procedures under sub3 section (a) of this section.’’.

Æ
u.s. Department of

Transportation

Office of the Secretary

Of Transportation

May 20, 2014

. ,. RT' 'r-'IT or I""".. :'..':1\ r

":, ...~jS?ORTATION

~~:I~;:TOPERATIONS

W~ HAY20 P 4: 41

1200 New Jersey Ave .. S.E.

Washington. DC 20S90

Mr. Jeffrey H. Erickson

President, People Express Airlines, Inc.

902 Bland Boulevard

Newport News, VA 23602

Re: Docket DOT-OST-2012-0042

Application of People Express Airlines, Inc.,

For a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity'

Dear Mr. Erickson:

On March 19,2012, People Express Airlines, Inc. ("PEX"), filed an application in Docket DOTOST-2012-0042 for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to conduct interstate

scheduled air transportation. In response to two requests for additional information from the

Department, PEX supplemented its application with additional information on April 27, 20'12,

and June 20, 2012. Some, but not all, of the information requested was provided. We have also

received several trade name registration requests for use of the "People Express" name from

other air carriers.

Because PEX has not updated the docket with required fitness information and it appears that it

is providing its trade name to already certificated air carriers, it is unclear to us whether.PEX

intends to conduct interstate scheduled air transportation as an actual certificated air carrier.

Moreover, it is not the Department's policy to keep incomplete applications open indefinitely.

Therefore, we require that PEX update the subject docket within 14 days of the date' of this letter,

with the required information that would allow us to make a fitness determination of the air

'carrier. Otherwise we intend to dismiss PEX's application without further notice.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this letter,

please feel free to contact Katy O'Toole of my staff at (202) 366-9998 or via email at

Catherine.O 'Toole@dot.gov.

Sincerely,

Laur J. emo

Chief, Air Carrier Fitness'Division

Office of Aviation Analysis
cc: Docket DOT-OST-2012-0042

Nicholas Scarpinato, Jr.

Manager, Washington FSDO

Federal Aviation Administration

2
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of On the Move Systems Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert Wilson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: November 4, 2016BY: /s/ Robert WilsonRobert WilsonPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Director  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17793]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 226


Truth in Lending (Regulation Z)

CFR Correction

0
In Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 220 to 229, 
revised as of January 1, 2018, on page 414, in Sec.  226.43, paragraph 
(1) after paragraph (b)(2) and before paragraph (b)(3) is removed.

[FR Doc. 2018-17793 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
EXHIBIT 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of Rainbow Coral Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Patrick Brown, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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 result of operations of the Company.  November 19, 2013/s/ Patrick BrownPatrick Brown, President,Principal Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial and Accounting officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

J ACKSON ALEXANDER , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 2306 LT Case No. 2016

- CF

- 0063 -A

STATE O F FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opini on filed December 30, 2022 3.800 Appeal f rom t he Cir c uit Court for Seminol e County , Melissa Souto, Judge. Jackson Alexander, F lorida City, pro se. N o Appearance for Appellee.

P E R CURIAM

. This court previously affirmed the trial court’s order(s) denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief in Seminole County Circuit Court Case No. 2016

- CF

- 0063 -A . Because it appears that Appellant’s postconviction filings are abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous,2 Appellant is cautioned that any further pro se filings in this court asserting claims stemming from Seminole County Circuit Court Case No. 2016

- CF

0063

- A may result in sanctions such as a bar on pro se filings in this court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings, which may include forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2019); State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). APPEL LANT CAUTIONED.

LAM BERT , C.J. , WALLIS, and EISNAUGLE , JJ., concur.