alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32





ORIENT-EXPRESS HOTELS LTD.





Section 1350 Certification





The undersigned hereby certify that this report of Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. for the periods presented fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the report.





/s/ John M. Scott III/s/ Martin O’GradyJohn M. Scott IIIMartin O’GradyPresident and Chief Executive OfficerVice President – Finance and Chief Financial Officer





Dated: June 18, 2014





[A signed original of this written certification has been provided to Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. and will be retained by Orient-Express Hotels Ltd. and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.1 AND 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS AMENDED, AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of XXX Acquisition Corp. (formerly known as Consorteum
Holdings, Inc., and hereinafter the "Company") hereby certifies to such
officer's knowledge that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This
certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be
deemed to be part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.


Date: April 13, 2009                              /s/ Marcia Rosenbaum
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  Marcia Rosenbaum
                                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                                  and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021357EN.01000501.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/5

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 — Crédit agricole SA (C-456/20 P), Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (C-457/20 P), CA Consumer Finance (C-458/20 P) v European Central Bank

(Joined Cases C-456/20 P to C-458/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Economic and monetary policy - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Article 18(1) - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Conferral of specific tasks on the European Central Bank (ECB) - Infliction of an administrative financial penalty for breach of prudential requirements - Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 - Article 26(3) - Own funds requirements - Capital instruments - Issuance of ordinary shares - Classification as Common Equity Tier 1 (CET 1) - No prior authorisation by the competent authority - Negligent breach)

(2021/C 357/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Crédit agricole SA (C-456/20 P), Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (C-457/20 P), CA Consumer Finance (C-458/20 P) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and D. Segoin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeals are dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeals are dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Crédit agricole SA, Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank and CA Consumer Finance shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Crédit agricole SA, Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank and CA Consumer Finance shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---
# C_2020423EN.01002901.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2020 — PJ v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio dei monopoli per la Toscana and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-452/20)

(2020/C 423/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: PJ

Respondents: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio dei monopoli per la Toscana and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Question referred

Does the second paragraph of Article 25 of regio decreto 24 dicembre 1934, n. 2316 (Royal Decree No 2316 of 24 December 1934), as replaced by Article 24(3) of decreto legislativo n. 6 del 2016 (Legislative Decree No 6 of 2016) (transposing Directive 2014/40/EU (1) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC) — inasmuch as it provides that ‘anyone who sells or supplies tobacco products or electronic cigarettes or refill containers containing nicotine or novel tobacco products to minors under the age of 18 shall be liable to a financial administrative penalty of EUR 500 to EUR 3 000 and a 15-day trading licence suspension’ — infringe the EU principle of proportionality and the precautionary principle, as set out in Article 5 TEU, in Article 23(3) of Directive 2014/40, and in recitals 21 and 60 of that directive, by giving precedence to the precautionary principle without mitigating it with the principle of proportionality, and thus disproportionately sacrificing the interests of economic operators to the protection of the right to health, thereby failing to ensure that a proper balance is struck between the different fundamental rights and, what is more, doing so by means of a penalty that, contrary to recital 8 of the directive, does not effectively pursue the objective of discouraging smoking prevalence among young people?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.

---
C. L., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4340

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 07, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2021462EN.01002101.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale — Italy) — O.D. and Others v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

(Case C-350/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/98/EU - Rights for third-country workers who hold single permits - Article 12 - Right to equal treatment - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Coordination of social security systems - Article 3 - Maternity and paternity benefits - Family benefits - Legislation of a Member State excluding third-country nationals holding a single permit from entitlement to a childbirth allowance and a maternity allowance)

(2021/C 462/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte costituzionale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: O.D., R.I.H.V., B.O., F.G., M.K.F.B., E.S., N.P, S.E.A.

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Intervener: Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excludes the third-country nationals referred to in Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of that directive from entitlement to a childbirth allowance and a maternity allowance provided for by that legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---
# C_2022463EN.01002501.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)

(Case T-711/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark CMS Italy - Earlier international figurative marks representing a feline bounding towards the left and earlier international figurative mark PUMA - Relative ground for refusal - Detriment to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the signs - Proof of reputation - Overall assessment)

(2022/C 463/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA (Alonte, Italy) (represented by: M. Salvador and R. Brogi, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 September 2020 (Case R 2215/2019-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 September 2020 (Case R 2215/2019-4) as regards the oppositions based on earlier trade marks No 480 105 and No 593 987; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 September 2020 (Case R 2215/2019-4) as regards the oppositions based on earlier trade marks No 480 105 and No 593 987;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Puma SE, EUIPO and CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Puma SE, EUIPO and CMS Costruzione macchine speciali SpA each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---
Case 24-41590-elm11 Doc 19 Filed 05/15/24 Entered 05/15/24 17:29:00 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Deny and Opinion Filed May 20, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00579-CV 

No. 05-14-00580-CV 

No. 05-14-00581-CV 

IN RE MICHAEL LERON DOWDEN, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 194th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-88-86782-1 

 Trial Court Cause No. F-88-86404-M 

 Trial Court Cause No. F-88-89370-M 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The facts and issues are well known to 

the parties, so we need not recount them herein. In a criminal case, an applicant for mandamus 

relief must establish that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress the harm he has suffered, 

and he must show that the act he seeks to compel or prohibit does not involve a discretionary or 

judicial decision. Simon v. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318, 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The record 

before the Court shows relator has not met this standard. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

140579F.P05 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 99.2

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Luc Chartrand,  Chief Financial Officer of EnterraEnergy Corp. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

| (1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for    the period ended March 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15    U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Luc Chartrand
					   	 																Luc Chartrand
                                           			 														Chief Executive Officer
													                                            				May 14, 2003
```
# C_2021062EN.01001602.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Westminster Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom) made on 1 December 2020 — Svishtov Regional Prosecutor’s Office v PI

(Case C-648/20)

(2021/C 62/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Westminster Magistrates’ Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Svishtov Regional Prosecutor’s Office

Defendant: PI

Question referred

Where surrender is sought in order to prosecute a requested person, and where the decision to issue an underlying national arrest warrant (‘NAW’) and the decision to issue a European arrest warrant (‘EAW’) are both taken by a public prosecutor, without any involvement of a Court prior to surrender, does a requested person receive the dual level of protection envisaged by the Court in Bob-Dogi C-241/15 (1) if:

| a. | the effect of the NAW is limited to detaining the individual for a maximum of 72 hours for the purpose of bringing him before a Court; and |
| --- | --- |

a.

the effect of the NAW is limited to detaining the individual for a maximum of 72 hours for the purpose of bringing him before a Court; and

| b. | on surrender, it is solely a matter for the Court whether to order release, or to continue detention, in light of all the circumstances of the case? |
| --- | --- |

b.

on surrender, it is solely a matter for the Court whether to order release, or to continue detention, in light of all the circumstances of the case?

---

(1)  Judgment of the Court of 1/6/2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:385)

---
Exhibit 31.2 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Donald H. Hunter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Harbor Global Company Ltd.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commissiontransition instructions] 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 11, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                               AUDITORS' REPORT

To the stockholders of Body Concepts, Inc. We have audited the statement of
financial position of Body Concepts, Inc. as at 31 December 1998 and 1999 and
the statements of loss and deficit, of cash flows and of changes in
stockholders' equity from the date of incorporation, 15 September 1998 to 31
December 1998 and for the year ended 31 December 1999. In addition, we have
audited the statement of loss and deficit and of cash flow from the date of
incorporation, 15 September 1998 to 31 December 1999. These financial statements
are the responsibility of the company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards
in Canada which are in substantial agreement with those in the United States of
America. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain
reasonable assurances whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An Audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.

In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of Body Concepts, Inc. as at 31 December 1998
and 1999 and the results of its operations, cash flows and changes in
stockholders' equity from the date of incorporation, 15 September 1998 to
December 31, 1998, and for the year ended 31 December 1999 in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America.

These financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will
continue as a going concern. As stated in Note 2 to the financial statements,
the Company will require an infusion of capital to sustain itself. This
requirement for additional capital raises substantial doubt about the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include
any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Richmond, British Columbia, Canada
10 FEBRUARY 2000
PARKER & CO. Chartered Accountants

                                       5
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 27, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1066 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-826, K2025-827.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30808 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Frederick D. EDOUARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-114

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 21, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Stephen M. Grogoza, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM and BADALAMENTI, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
Stephen Wayne MOUNT v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-16-0674

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.