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


                                                                   Exhibit 3.10


                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

                                       OF

                          TRAVELCENTERS REALTY, L.L.C.

                      A Delaware Limited Liability Company



FIRST: The name of the limited liability company is TravelCenters Realty, L.L.C.

SECOND: Its registered office in the State of Delaware is to be located at 1209
Orange Street, Corporation Trust Center, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 The
registered agent at that address is The Corporation Trust Company.

THIRD: The formation of TravelCenters Realty, L.L.C., as a limited liability
company shall be effective at 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2002.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the individual authorized to form the
Company, has executed, signed and acknowledged this Certificate of Formation
this 23rd day of December, 2002.


                                     By: /s/ James W. George
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         James W. George, Authorized
                                         Representative
Hilton WIENER, Appellant, v. Ila WIENER n/k/a Ila Lerner, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1440

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**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 U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Paul B. Gridley, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of US Shipping General Partner LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

|   | /s/ Paul B. Gridley                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                        |
|   | Paul B.   Gridley                      |
|   | Chairman and   Chief Executive Officer |
|   | November 9,   2006                     |

          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. and will be retained by U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 7.1

**Explanation ofratio calculations**

 

|                                                            | 2016    | 2015     | 2014    | 2013     | 2012     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|---------------|--------------|---------------|---------------|
| Other  financial data                                           | %            | %             | %            | %             | %             |
| Dividend payout ratio (1)                                  | 2,609        | —  | (300)        | —  | —  |
| Average owners' equity as a percentage of  average total assets | 30.8    | 18.8     | 9.0     | 4.2      | 3.3      |
| Capital ratio - Tier 1                                          | 21.2    | 30.1     | 24.5    | 23.2     | 13.9     |
| Capital ratio - Total                                           | 24.1    | 42.5     | 33.9    | 26.1     | 19.8     |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges only (3)                |    |     |    |     |     |
|   – including interest on deposits              | 1.43    | 0.84     | 0.83    | 0.73     | 0.13     |
|   – excluding interest on deposits              | 1.59    | 0.77     | 0.71    | 0.35     | —  |

 

Notes:

(1)    Dividend payout ratio represents dividendsdeclared on a per share basis as a percentage of net (loss)/profit attributableto ordinary shareholders. 

(2)    Return on average ordinary shareholders' equityrepresents profit attributable to ordinary shareholders expressed as apercentage of average ordinary shareholders' equity. Negative ratios have beenexcluded.

(3)    For this purpose, earnings consist of incomebefore tax plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of total interest expense,including or excluding interest on deposits. Deposits include banks and totalcustomer accounts. The coverage deficiency for total fixed charges excludinginterest on deposits  is 2015 - €48 million; 2014 - €57 million; 2013 - €142million; 2012 - €887 million.

 

 

----
Cornell ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3877

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 5, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

**CONCESSION OF ERROR**

Per Curiam.

Appellant was charged with attempted first degree murder. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder. As the state concedes, the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the necessarily included offense of attempted manslaughter by act amounted to fundamental error because that offense is one step removed from the convicted offense of attempted second degree murder. *See* *Walton v. State* , 208 So.3d 60, 64 (Fla. 2016) ; *Coleman v. State* , 110 So.3d 971, 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Nothing in the record suggests that appellant expressly waived the instruction. Defense counsel did not waive the error by failing to request an instruction on attempted manslaughter by act. *See* *Roberts v. State* , 242 So.3d 296,299 (Fla. 2018).

*Reversed and remanded for a new trial* .

Gerber, C.J., Warner and Gross, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

GRISELDA DE HOYOS, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:04-CV-898-Y

 §

GINNY VAN BUREN, Warden, §

FMC-Carswell, §

Respondent. § 

FINAL JUDGMENT

Pursuant to an Order issued this same day, and Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 58:

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Petitioner's

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be, and is hereby, DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that all costs of court are taxed

against the party that incurred them.

SIGNED April 26, 2005.

_

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00898-Y Document 8 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 119
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 amended quarterly report of Trycera Financial, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer of the Company,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date:  February 25, 2005

/s/ Matthew S. Kerper
Matthew S. Kerper, President
(Principal executive officer)
RC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0400

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KRISTIN VINECKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including May 16, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 27 2020

03/27/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0400
# C_2016462EN.01003602.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/36

---

Action brought on 19 October 2016 — Argyraki v Commission

(Case T-734/16)

(2016/C 462/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vassilia Argyraki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Office for the administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of 29 January 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Office for the administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of 29 January 2016;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes two pleas.

| 1. | First plea, relating to the second period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the contested decision is based on a non-existent legal basis, since there is no condition relating to a change of institution in Commission Conclusion No 229/04 of 7 April 2004, Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, or in the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, relating to the second period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the contested decision is based on a non-existent legal basis, since there is no condition relating to a change of institution in Commission Conclusion No 229/04 of 7 April 2004, Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, or in the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.

| 2. | Second plea, relating to the first period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the condition applied by the contested decision, namely the non-interruption of the service for more than one year, and provided for by Conclusion No 229/04 infringes Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, relating to the first period during which the applicant acted as a member of the auxiliary staff, according to which the condition applied by the contested decision, namely the non-interruption of the service for more than one year, and provided for by Conclusion No 229/04 infringes Article 4(1) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by the case-law. Consequently, that part of the contested measure is unlawful and should be annulled.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Gerald PARKER

NO. 2019-KK-0351

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
# C_2016111EN.01003202.xml

| 29.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/32

---

Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Novartis v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch)

(Case T-44/16)

(2016/C 111/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Suisse) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SK Chemicals GmbH (Eschborn, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a patch) — EU trade mark registration No 11 293 362

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2015 in Case R 2342/2014-5

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 80(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 80(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of the principle of fair trial by the Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of fair trial by the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

---
Jennifer JOHNSON, Appellant, v. CASA DEL MAR CONDOMINIUM, Association No. 3 of St. Petersburg Florida, Inc., Appellee.

Jennifer Johnson, Appellant, v. Casa Del Mar Condominium, Association No. 3 of St. Petersburg Florida, Inc., Duane Fox, Howard Asbrand, Nancy Asbrand, Guido Sartor, John Peck, Jerry Peterson, Renee Huber, William Mottley, and Php Management Services, LLC, d/b/a Condominium Associates, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-1402 Case Nos. 2D17-4046 CONSOLIDATED

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Larry Earl RENO

CR-16-0361

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 22, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Raytaurus E. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-2012

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

DISMISSED.
Explore
						Recent Photos
							Trending
								Events
							The Commons
							Flickr Galleries
							World Map
							Camera Finder
							Flickr Blog

					Prints

						The Print Shop

							Prints & Wall Art
							Photo Books

					Get Pro

						Pro Plans
							Stats Dashboard
							Get Auto-Uploadr Log In
					Sign Up  Log In Explore
						Trending
							Events
						The Commons
						Flickr Galleries

						Flickr Blog The Print Shop

						Prints & Wall Art
						Photo Books Get Pro About Jobs Blog Advertise Developers Guidelines Help Help forum Privacy Terms Cookies English
 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Follow
 Give Pro
 610 Followers•0 Following
 301 Photos
 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Give Pro
 610 Followers•0 Following
 301 Photos
 Follow
 Save Cancel Drag to set position!
 About
					Photostream
					Albums
					Faves
					Galleries
					Groups
 This user has no public photos
 
 1 2 3 4
 About
				Jobs
				Blog
				Advertise
				Developers
				Guidelines
				Privacy
				Terms
				Help
				Report abuse
				Help forum
				English
		Privacy
					Terms
						Cookies

				Connecting people through photography.
	About
				Jobs
				Blog
				Advertise
				Developers
				Guidelines
				Report abuse
				Privacy
				Terms
				Help forum
				English
		Privacy
					Terms
						Cookies
					Help

				Connecting people through photography.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TERRA FIRMA BUILDERS, LLC,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM KING A/K/A BILLY M. KING AND

MELANIE L. KING A/K/A MELANIE L.

FRANTZ,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 606 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10 th day of March, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The issue as stated by petitioner is:

Is a property owner who seeks to challenge the perfection of a mechanics’ lien required to file preliminary objections before or during the enforcement proceeding of the lien?
# C_2016364EN.01002601.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/26

---

Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Papa)

(Case T-451/16)

(2016/C 364/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Bester Papa’ — Application for registration No 14 169 213

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 94/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Shahid S. Asghar, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ECC Capital Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, 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 for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 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 ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

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

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

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

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 15, 2005
EX PARTE J.W.S.

1160965 (CR-16-0101)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
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-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities listed below, hereby certifies, 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:  November 14, 2007
        
        By:
        /s/ B. Steven SpringroseB. Steven SpringroseChief Executive Officerand President(principal executive officer)




Date:  November 14, 2007
        
        By:
        /s/ Judy E. NausJudy E. NausChief 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.





---
Exhibit
      13.1





PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report ofGolden
State Petro (IOM 1-B) PLC(the“Company”) on Form 20-F for
the annual period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the“Report”), I,Tor Olav Trøim, the Principal
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





A signed original of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
SEC or its staff upon request.





Date:  June 30, 2008












/s/Tor Olav
Trøim




Tor Olav
Trøim


Principal Executive Officer