alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Metavante Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank R. Martire, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

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

(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/    FRANK R.
MARTIRE
|Frank R. Martire       
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|August 7, 2008         



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 required by Section 906, 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.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): May 16, 2007
 Natural Resource Partners L.P.
  DELAWARE
    
    001-31465
    
    35-2164875(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 601 Jefferson, Suite 3600
Houston, Texas 77002
 (713) 751-7507
   o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
 o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Principal Officers.Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.SIGNATURESPress Release    Table of Contents  
 Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Principal Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment
of Principal Officers.
   
 Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (d)
    
    Exhibits.
 EXHIBIT NUMBER
    
    DESCRIPTION99.1
    
    
    Press Release dated May 16, 2007.
 
 SIGNATURES
  Natural Resource Partners L.P.By:
    NRP (GP) LP,its general partnerBy:
    GP Natural Resource Partners LLC,its general partnerBy:
    /s/ Wyatt HoganName:
    Wyatt HoganTitle:
    Vice President and General Counsel
Order entered October 11, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01140

- CV

THE ROMACK COMPANY , ET AL. , Appellant s

V.

JP BENT TREE, LP, ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appea l from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 06155



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant s ’ October 10, 2019 motion to extend the time to file their

brief on the merits . We GRANT the motion and extend the time to November 15, 2019. We

caution appellants that further requests for extension in this accelerated appeal will be

disfavored.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF SENIOR OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SERVICING

FUNCTION OF THE SERVICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES

OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kim Taylor, certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
Form 10-K of Huntington Auto Trust 2012-2 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the
period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer
has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on the information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas.



|                     |  |                                                                 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|By:                  |  | /s/ Kim Taylor                                                  
|Name:                |  | Kim Taylor                                                      
|Title:               |  | Senior Vice President, The Huntington
National Bank, as Servicer
|                    
|Date: March 25, 2014
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  July 20, 2007
    /s/   DON R. MADISONDon R. MadisonExecutive Vice President
Chief Financial and Administrative Officer 29
# L_2011290EN.01000601.xml

| 9.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 290/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 290/6

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 282 of 28 October 2011
  )

On the cover page and on page 1, the title is replaced with the following:

‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff’.

---
# L_2011046EN.01002101.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 46/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 46/21

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 152/2011

of 18 February 2011

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Chosco de Tineo (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Chosco de Tineo’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Chosco de Tineo’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOŞ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 166, 25.6.2010, p. 8.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.2.   Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

SPAIN

Chosco de Tineo (PGI)

---
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23712]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-0026]


Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease 
Product; AQNEURSA (Levacetylleucine)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare 
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review 
vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product 
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish 
notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined 
that AQNEURSA (levacetylleucine), approved on September 24, 2024, 
manufactured by IntraBio Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review 
voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathryn Lee, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1394.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority 
review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease 
product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
360ff), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved 
rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. 
FDA has determined that AQNEURSA (levacetylleucine), manufactured by 
IntraBio Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. 
AQNEURSA (levacetylleucine) is indicated for the treatment of 
neurological manifestations of Niemann-Pick disease type C in adults 
and pediatric patients weighing >=15 kg.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority 
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 
of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further 
information about AQNEURSA (levacetylleucine), go to the ``Drugs@FDA'' 
website at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: October 8, 2024.
Eric Flamm,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-23712 Filed 10-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
#### CHAISON v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.

No. 3128.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

May 6, 1937.

Howell C. Happ, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Victor E. Ippolito and Smith, Smith & Boyd, all of Beaumont, for appellee.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This case originated in justice court with appellee, Maryland Casualty Company, as plaintiff, and appellant, Charles J. Chaison, as defendant. The amount sued for was the principal sum of $176.10 and “reasonable attorney’s fees in the sum of $50.-00.” Appellee recovered in justice court the principal sum and $25 as reasonable attorney’s fees. On trial de novo in county court appellee again recovered the principal sum of $176.10 and $50 as reasonable attorney’s fees.

Neither the justice court nor the county court had jurisdiction of this casé. The attorney’s fee sued for was part of the amount in controversy, making an amount beyond the jurisdiction of the justice court. Johnson v. Universal Life & Accident Ins. Co. (Tex.Com.App.) 94 S.W.(2d) 1145; Id. (Tex.Civ.App.) 96 S.W.(2d) 674; American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Mays (Tex.Civ.App.) 97 S.W.(2d) 975. The cases cited deny appellee’s contention that the attorney’s fee sued for was “part of the. costs”.

Since the justice court did not have jurisdiction of the amount in controversy, the county court did not acquire jurisdiction by appeal. Bankers’ Health & Accident Co. v. Kimbro (Tex.Civ.App.) 62 S.W.(2d) 262.

It follows that the judgment appealed from must be reversed and the case dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Reversed and dismissed.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2012-6 for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby
certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 10, 2012, among Santander Drive Auto
Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2012-6 and U.S. Bank National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period
that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 29, 2013By:

/s/ Mark McCastlainName:

Mark McCastlainTitle:

Senior Vice President and TreasurerDate:

March 29, 2013
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 6-K
 REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the month of December 2007
 Commission File Number: 001-32179
 INTEROIL CORPORATION
  THE YUKON TERRITORY, CANADA
  60-92 COOK STREET
PORTSMITH, QLD 4870, AUSTRALIA
 (61) 7 4046 4600
  o þ
 o
 o
  o þ




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  INTEROIL CORPORATIONBy:
    
    -s- Phil MulacekPhil MulacekChief Executive OfficerDate: 21 December 2007




---



##### 



INTEROIL CORPORATION
FORM 6-K FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2007
 Exhibit Index
 1.
    
    Securities Purchase Agreement2.
    
    Common Share Purchase Agreement
#### SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES, Inc., v. MAREK.

No. 2947.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Jan. 28, 1937.

For former opinion, see 68 S.W.(2d) 384.

W. B. Handley and R. T. Bailey, both of Dallas, for plaintiff in error. ■

Caldwell, Gillen, Francis & Gallagher, of Dallas, for defendant in error.

HIGGINS, Justice.

Upon the original consideration of this case, the judgment was reversed because of argument by counsel for defendant in error. See (Tex.Civ.App.) 68 S.W.(2d) 384. The judgment in the case was for $5,000. One of the errors assigned was that such award was excessive. This assignment was not passed upon by this court, it being deemed unnecessary to do so in view of the reversal for improper argument. A writ of error was granted and the judgment of reversal by this court was reversed by the Supreme Court, 99 S.W.(2d) 594, and the judgment of the district court affirmed. Later the judgment of the Supreme Court was set aside and the cause was remanded to this court with instruction *592to pass upon the question of excessiveness in the award of damages, and make such disposition of the case as this court’s ruling thereon might require. This latter order of the Supreme Court is based upon a supplemental opinion of Justice Hickman, of the Commission of Appeals, handed down December 30, 1936, 99 S.W. (2d) 597, not yet reported [in State Reports],

In accordance with the instruction, of the Supreme Court, we have considered the assignment complaining that the award of damages is excessive. The evidence upon the issue is somewhat lengthy and need not be stated. Suffice it to say that in our opinion the award of $5,000 damages is amply sustained by the evidence, and the assignment in question is overruled.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
SCAD-22-0000099

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE HAWAI#I SUPREME COURT, 

Petitioner,

vs.

MICHAEL JOHN COLLINS, II, aka MICHAEL CHARLES COLLINS,

aka MICHAEL JOHN COLLINS, aka MICHAEL JOHN COLLINS, XXVII

(HI bar #9087), Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC NO. 22-0051)

ORDER DISSOLVING ORDER OF SUSPENSION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the December 29, 2022

declarations and exhibits submitted by Respondent Collins filed

with regard to his pending October 3, 2022 motion to dissolve

this court’s April 5, 2022 interim suspension of his law license,

imposed pursuant to Rule 2.23 of the Rules of the Supreme Court

of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), the January 5, 2023 response from

the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), the January 19, 2023

supplemental submission arranged by Respondent Collins, and the

record in this matter, we conclude that Respondent Collins has

made a good faith effort to comply with the terms of this court’s

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-22-0000099

30-JAN-2023

10:05 AM

Dkt. 136 ORD
May 31, 2022 and November 28, 2022 orders, and, importantly, is

currently cooperative with ODC in regards to his conduct which

led to the instant interim suspension. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Collins’s

October 3, 2022 motion to dissolve the April 5, 2022 interim

suspension is granted. The April 5, 2022 order of suspension is

dissolved, without prejudice to ODC returning to this court for

further relief if it deems appropriate to do so.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Collins shall not

return to the practice of law until he fulfills any and all

administrative requirements imposed by Rule 17(d) of the Rules of

the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i, administered by the

Hawai#i State Bar Association.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 30, 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
#### Birkholz and another, d/b/a Birkholz Brothers, Respondents, vs. Cheese Makers Mutual Casualty Company and another, Appellants.

*November 7*

December *4, 1956.*

*191For the appellants there was a brief by Lehner, *Lehner & Behling*of Oconto Falls, and oral argument by *Howard N. Lehner.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Callahan & Arnold*of Columbus, and oral argument by *Carroll B. Callahan.*

Brown, J.

Appellants submit that the policy insuring Birkholz Brothers against liability constitutes Birkholzes’ insurance company their agent to effect settlements, and participation in settlement by the agent is participation by the principal. From there they advance to the proposition stated in *Wm. H. Heinemann Creameries v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co.*(1955), 270 Wis. 443, 452b, 71 N. W. (2d) 395, that “the making of the original settlement without any express reservation of rights by the settlor constitutes a com-*192píete accord and satisfaction of all claims of the *immediate*parties to the settlement arising out of the same accident.”

On the agency question we held, on page 452 of the *Heine-mann*opinion, *supra:*

> “An insured, who is sued for damages as a result of the insured vehicle participating in an accident, and thereupon turns over the defense of the action to his insurance company, does not by such action impliedly authorize counsel, employed by the insurance company to defend the action, to make a compromise settlement without his consent which will prejudice his right to recover his own damages from the other party to the accident.”

Insurance policies, and particularly the one in the instant case, habitually state that the insurer’s functions are limited to the terms and conditions of the policy. The authority of the insurer to make settlements is limited to the insurer’s own resources and it is not empowered by the policy, without the assured’s knowledge and consent, to contribute toward the settlement either cash or other property, such as causes of action, belonging to the assured. The policy does not create such an agency, and the *Heinemann Case, supra,*shows so, for there we held that the cause of action owned by the insurer who had procured the settlement was barred by es-toppel while the cause of action owned by the assured was not to be barred unless further inquiry determined that the assured had been consulted about the settlement and had participated therein to the extent of consenting to it.

In the present action the trial court is informed by the pleadings and affidavits that the assured did not participate in or consent to the settlement with McNulty, was not consulted about it, nor had knowledge of it. The court, then, on the record up to the time of defendants’ motion, did not err in ruling that Birkholz Brothers were not estopped by the settlement of McNulty’s claim from prosecuting an action for their own damages.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.3**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in this RegistrationStatement on Form S-1 of our report dated April 2, 2007, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. appearing in the Form 10-K/Afor the year ended December 31, 2006 and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in theProspectus, which is part of such Registration Statement./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP