alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.2
              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of Travel
Services International, Inc. of our report dated April 17, 1998 (except Note 6,
as to which the date is June 1, 1998), with respect to the financial statements
of Lexington Services Associates, Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 1997,
included in the Registration Statement (Form S-1 No. 333-56567) of Travel
Services International, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                           Ernst & Young LLP
Dallas, Texas
March 30, 1999
# C_2017347EN.01001901.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 August 2017 — Deutsche Post AG v Hauptzollamt Köln

(Case C-496/17)

(2017/C 347/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

| 1. | Is the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (1) of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that this provision permits the customs authority to request the applicant to inform it of the tax identification numbers issued by the German Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Federal Central Tax Office) for the purpose of income tax collection and the tax offices responsible for the income tax assessment of the members of the applicant’s supervisory board, its managing directors, heads of department, head of accounts, head of the customs department as well as those individuals responsible for customs matters and those dealing with customs matters employed by the applicant? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the second subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 (1) of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that this provision permits the customs authority to request the applicant to inform it of the tax identification numbers issued by the German Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Federal Central Tax Office) for the purpose of income tax collection and the tax offices responsible for the income tax assessment of the members of the applicant’s supervisory board, its managing directors, heads of department, head of accounts, head of the customs department as well as those individuals responsible for customs matters and those dealing with customs matters employed by the applicant?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558.

1

---
# AV.1

# AV.2

# AV.3

# AV.4

# AV.5

# AV.6

# AV.7

# AV.8

# AV.9

# AV.10

# AV.11

# AV.12

# AV.13

# AV.14

# AV.15

# AV.16

# AV.17

# AV.18

# AV.19

# AV.20

# AV.21

# AV.22

# AV.23

# AV.24

# AV.25

# AV.26

# AV.27

# AV.28

# AV.29

# AV.30

# AV.31

# AV.32

# AV.33

# AV.34

# AV.35
**EXHIBIT 32.1** **LAS VEGAS    SANDS CORP.** **CERTIFICATION    UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF    2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed by Las Vegas    Sands Corp. with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the    date hereof (the “Report”), I 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 Las Vegas Sands Corp.      By: /s/  Sheldon    G. Adelson    Sheldon G. Adelson    Chief Executive Officer     Date: May 9, 2008
In the INTEREST OF M.A.L., a Child.

S.A., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D19-2

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

AARON CHARLES MARTIN,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 220 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Case 3:05-cv-00607-B Document 5 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 17
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00607-B Document 5 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 18
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00607-B Document 5 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 19
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

PPT Briefing to Sub-committee on Airports: August 16 – 17 - 2016

Technical Center Director’s Conference Room

DAY 1 – August 16, 2016

9:00 am Christopher Oswald Introduction

ACI-NA, Subcommittee Chairperson

9:10 am Eric Neiderman Aviation Research Division/Welcome

Manager, Aviation Research Division

9:15 am Chinita Roundtree-Coleman REDAC process overview

Research, Engineering and Advisory Committee

9:25 am Michel Hovan Overview of Research Program Areas (RPA’s)

Manager, Airports Technology Research Branch

9:35 am John Dermody HQ Update

Deputy Director

FAA Office of Airports Safety and Standards

9:45 am Subcommittee Members and Others Review of REDAC Recommendations

10:15 am Jim Patterson Overview of Safety RPA’s

Airport Safety R&D Section Manager

10:30 am Break

10:45 am Lauren Collins RPA S1- Airport Planning

RPA S2 - Airport Safety Data Mining

RPA S8 - Noise Program

11:30 am Lunch

12:30 pm Ryan King RPA S4 - Wildlife Hazard Mitigation

1:00 pm Robert Bassey RPA S5 - Visual Guidance

1:30 pm Joe Breen/Nick Subbotin RPA S6 - Runway Surface Safety Technology

2:00 pm Robert Bassey RPA S7 - Airport Safety and Surveillance Sensors

2:30 pm Ryan King/Jim Hileman RPA E1 - Airport Environmental Research 

3:00 pm Break

3:15 pm Sub-Committee members Recommendation(s) of the day

4:00 pm Future Needs

5:00 pm Adjourn
DAY 2 –August 17

8:30 am Jeffrey Gagnon Overview of Pavement RPA’s 

8:45 am Ryan Rutter RPA P1 - NAPTF

9:15 am Navneet Garg RPA P2 - NAPMRC

10:00 am Navneet Garg RPA P3 - Field Instrumentation and Testing

10:30 am Break

10:45 am Murphy Flynn RPA P4 - Advanced Materials

11:15 am David Brill RPA P5 - Pavement Design and Evaluation

12:00 am Lunch

1:00 pm Albert Larkin RPA P6 - NDT Technologies

1:45 pm Qingge Jia RPA P7 - Software Program Development and Support

2:00 pm Dave Brill RPA P8 - Extended Pavement Life

2:30 pm Murphy Flynn RPA P9 – New R&D Facilities

2:45 pm REDAC Recommendation(s)

3:30 pm Adjourn
# C_2019187EN.01000901.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 — Canadian Solar Emea GmbH and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-236/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 3(7) - Article 9(4) - Temporal scope of Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012)

(2019/C 187/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd, formerly Csi Solar Power (China) Inc. (represented by: J. Bourgeois and A. Willems, avocats, and by S. De Knop, M. Meulenbelt and B. Natens, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, avocată), European Commission (represented by: N. Kuplewatzky, J.-F. Brakeland and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs relating to the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Canadian Solar Emea GmbH, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power Group Co. Ltd to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal;

| 5. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companyat the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

Dated: May 16, 2005 

 

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theCompany, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
**EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

     **18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DYNAMIC ALERT LIMITED (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley Hawkings, 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:

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

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

Date: November 13, 2008

By: ***/s/ Bradley Hawkings***

Bradley Hawkings

Chief Financial Officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer

----
Exhibit 10.4
 FORM OF
DEFERRED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT
FOR THE NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM
 UNDER THE DIAMONDROCK HOSPITALITY COMPANY
2004 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN
 Name of Grantee:Number of DSUs Granted:Grant Date:
 Award
 Restrictions and Conditions
 Vesting of DSUs
 Timing and Form of Payout
 Voting Rights and Dividends
 Change in Control
 Beneficiary Designation




---



##### 



Continuation of Service as Director
 Incorporation of Plan
 Transferability
 Notices
 DiamondRock Hospitality CompanyBy:Title: _______________________________  Dated:Grantees SignatureGrantees name and address:
  2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0044 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TYLER BRANDON MATTHEWS,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 22 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 17 2024

01/17/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0044
# C_2018408EN.01002301.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/23

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Helga Löber v Barclays Bank plc

(Case C-304/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(3) - Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur - Consumer, domiciled in a Member State, who bought, through a bank established in that Member State, securities issued by a bank established in another Member State - Jurisdiction to hear and determine the tort action brought by that consumer against the bank concerned))

(2018/C 408/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Helga Löber

Defendant: Barclays Bank plc

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted to the effect that in a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, in which an investor brings, on the basis of the prospectus relating to a certificate in which he or she invested, a tort action against the bank which issued that certificate, the courts of that investor’s domicile, as the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred within the meaning of that provision, have jurisdiction to hear and determine that action, where the damage the investor claims to have suffered consists in financial loss which occurred directly in that investor’s bank account with a bank established within the jurisdiction of those courts and the other specific circumstances of that situation also contribute to attributing jurisdiction to those courts.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---
Herbert E. CLARK III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5012

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.24

                                              As of November 21, 2000

Mr. James F. Schadt
17 Owenoke Park
Westport, CT 06880

Dear Jim:

            I refer to the agreement between you and Mercator Software Inc (the
"Company") dated August 21, 2000 (the "Agreement"). The following is added to
that Agreement.

      The Board of Directors has asked you to assume the duties of Chief
Executive Officer of the Company ("CEO") on a full time basis and you have
agreed to assume these duties until a new CEO is selected and the transition to
that person is completed. The Company and you have also agreed that in addition
to the usual duties and powers of CEO that you shall also recruit and present to
the Board of Directors a candidate for CEO.

      The Company grants to you, effective as of the date hereof and in a form
of grant agreement identical to those used in the Agreement, options to acquire
One Hundred and Fifty Thousand (150,000) shares of the Company's common stock at
the closing price of such common stock on the date of hereof. Except as
expressly set forth herein the terms shall be as set forth in the Stock Option
Grant letter and as set forth in the Agreement. Such shares shall vest as
follows: (i) Fifty Thousand (50,000) options shall be vested and immediately
exercisable as of the date hereof; (ii) Fifty Thousand (50,000) options shall be
vested and exercisable as of the date the candidate for CEO is employed by the
Company and (iii) Fifty Thousand (50,000) options shall be vested and
exercisable as of the date the transition to the new CEO is complete. All three
vesting events will occur no later than six (6) months from the date hereof.

      Until the transition to the new CEO is complete, you will continue to
perform the duties of CEO. It is expected that as part of the transition to the
new CEO, you and that person will work out a time table for transition which
will provide for transition to the new CEO in no more than six (6) months from
the date of employment of such person. At the completion of such a transition or
no more than six (6) months from the date at the employment of the new CEO, you
shall continue employment under the existing terms of the Agreement. Except as
set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
<PAGE>

      If you are in agreement with this Amendment please execute below and
return one copy to the Company secretary.

                                   Mercator Software Inc.

                                   By: /s/ Ernest Keet
                                       -------------------------
                                       Ernest Keet, Director

J.P. Schadt

/s/ J.P. Schadt
-----------------------
Agreement Accepted
as of the date hereof
Maria GUEVARA, Appellant, v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D18-936

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 4, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Biotel Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the
capacities listed below, hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (i) The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

|                    |                                |                           | 
|------------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------------- | 
|                    | Biotel Inc.                   
|                    |                                |                          
|Date: May
 14, 2010 | By:                            | /s/ B.
 Steven Springrose | 
|                    | B. Steven
 Springrose         
|                    | Chief
 Executive Officer      
|                    | and
 President                
|                    | (principal
 executive officer)
|                    |                                |                          
|Date: May
 14, 2010 | By:                            | /s/ Judy E.
 Naus         | 
|                    | Judy E. Naus                  
|                    | Chief
 Financial Officer      
|                    | (principal
 financial officer)

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Biotel Inc. and will be retained by Biotel Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
William Houston KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2905

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 5, 2019

William Houston King, Lake City, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, William Houston King was adjudicated guilty of violating the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization ("RICO") Act, conspiracy to violate the Florida RICO Act, and organized fraud in Marion County Circuit Court Case Number 2009-CF-002251. King was sentenced to twelve years and six months' imprisonment, followed by fifteen years of probation. King appealed his judgment and sentence, and this Court per curiam affirmed. *King v. State*, 177 So.3d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

King subsequently filed eight separate appeals attacking the denials of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motions for postconviction relief. King voluntarily dismissed two of his postconviction appeals, and this Court per curiam affirmed the remaining appeals. *See* *King v. State*, 177 So.3d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ; *King v. State*, 222 So.3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; *King v. State*, 229 So.3d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; *King v. State*, 233 So.3d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; *King v. State*, 252 So.3d 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ; *King v. State*, No. 5D18-2905, 2019 WL 993355 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 26, 2019).

Due to King's apparent abuse of the legal process by his repeated frivolous filings attacking his judgment and sentence rendered in the above referenced case, this Court issued an order directing King to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. *See* *State v. Spencer*, 751 So.2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered King's response and finding that it fails to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed, we *1293conclude that he is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.

Therefore, in order to conserve judicial resources, King is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning the above referenced case. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. Any future filings regarding the referenced case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. *See* *Isley v. State*, 652 So.2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) ("Enough is enough."). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. *See* § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; *Simpkins v. State*, 909 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Future pro se filings PROHIBITED.

COHEN, BERGER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.