alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.2 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Patrick Flynn, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ING Groep N.V.; 

2. Based onmy 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 withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financialreporting; and 

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

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

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 17, 2014
NO. 12-10-00154-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BRET KEVIN SIRLES,

APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by 

Appellant and his counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered August 25, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 22, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 7697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01513]

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Revised Jurisdictional Thresholds for Section 8 of the Clayton 
Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Annual notice of revision.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds 
for interlocking directorates required by the 1990 amendment of section 
8 of the Clayton Act.

DATES: January 22, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Grengs (202-326-2612), 
Bureau of Competition, Office of Policy and Coordination.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8 prohibits, with certain 
exceptions, one person from serving as a director or officer of two 
competing corporations if two thresholds are met. Competitor 
corporations are covered by section 8 if each one has capital, surplus, 
and undivided profits aggregating more than $10,000,000, with the 
exception that no corporation is covered if the competitive sales of 
either corporation are less than $1,000,000. Section 8(a)(5) requires 
the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based 
on the change in gross national product. The new thresholds, which take 
effect immediately, are $51,380,000 for section 8(a)(1), and $5,138,000 
for section 8(a)(2)(A).
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 19(a)(5).

April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-01513 Filed 1-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
```
No. 30,087.

#### The Board of Trustees of Drainage District No. 1 of Lyon County, *Plaintiff,*v. J. H. Glotfelter, as Treasurer of Lyon County, *Defendant.*

(300 Pac. 1118.)

Opinion filed July 3, 1931.

*O. L.*Isaacs, of Emporia, for the plaintiff.

*Clarence V.*Beck, county attorney, for the defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one of mandamus commenced by the board of trustees of a drainage district in process of disorganization, against the county treasurer as collector of taxes for the drainage district, to require the treasurer to pay to the trustees taxes collected for the drainage district.

The taxes were levied and collected pursuant to the judgment of this court in the cases of *Fidelity Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Morris,*127 Kan. 283, 273 Pac. 425, and 130 Kan. 290, 286 Pac. 206. Some taxpayers paid without protest, and there is no reason why the treasurer should hold the taxes so paid. Other taxpayers paid under protest. The protest of certain persons was that the assessment was not in conformity with and was in violation of R. S. 24-618. The court had already interpreted the statute as authorizing the assessment, the protest was not well founded *(Railway Co. v. Drainage District,*post, p. 586, and companion case, just decided), the taxpayers have taken no action to recover the payments made under protest, and the treasurer arbitrarily withholds those taxes.

Two corporations paid under protest, and sued to recover the taxes. Their protests were unavailing. *(Railway Co. v. Drainage District,*supra.)

Peremptory writ allowed, costs to be taxed to defendant.
EX PARTE Tony L. PEPPERS

CR-16-1139

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Michael RENAUD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4113

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 12, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 02, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
David FLICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1113

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Dwight JOSEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3665

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of NetSol Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Najeeb Ghauri,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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





Date:
January 31, 2011





/s/
      Najeeb GhauriNajeeb
      Ghauri,Chief
      Executive OfficerPrincipal
      Executive Officer
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000799 28-JAN-2020 10:18 AM
Anthony Louis BINFORD III v. STATE

CR-16-1019

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
Filed 6/4/02 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2002 ND 91

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Jonathon Ray Moore 

a/k/a Jonathan Ray Moore, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20010255

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald L. Jorgensen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Ladd R. Erickson, Assistant State’s Attorney, 210 2nd Avenue Northwest, Mandan, N.D. 58554, for plaintiff and appellee.

Paul Henry Myerchin, P.O. Box 995, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-0995, for defendant and appellant.

Chad R. McCabe, Vinje Law Firm, 523 North 4th Street, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4055, for amicus curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

State v. Moore

No. 20010255

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Jonathon Ray Moore appealed from a criminal judgment entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of theft of property, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and reckless driving.  We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a joint trial of Moore and his brother or in admitting in evidence photographs of his fingerprints.  Moore’s unsuccessful motion in limine to exclude fingerprint evidence under the standards articulated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), was untimely, and by failing to object to admission of the evidence at trial, Moore failed to preserve the issue for appellate review.  See State v. Entzi, 2000 ND 148, ¶¶ 16, 20, 615 N.W.2d 145.  We affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

William A. Neumann

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Case 3:05-cv-01552-H Document 14 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 67
STATE of Louisiana v. Richard LAGARRIGUE

No. 18-KH-0920

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claim, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

THOMAS M. DUBOSE, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-017-Y

 §

COLE JETER, Warden, §

FMC-Fort Worth, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Thomas M. Dubose under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of the

following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

April 22, 2005; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on May 13, 2005.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Dubose’s

objections must be overruled, that the motion to dismiss should be

granted, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, for the

reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.

 It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge should be, and are hereby,

ADOPTED, as modified herein.

It is further ORDERED that respondent Jeter’s March 10, 2005,

motion to dismiss [docket no. 3] be, and is hereby, GRANTED.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00017-Y Document 8 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 84
2

It is further ORDERED that Thomas M. Dubose’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be, and is hereby,

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SIGNED May 19, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00017-Y Document 8 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 85
V.A., Father of D.A.V., V.A., F.A. and M.A., Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-132

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Lorenzo JEFFERSON

No. 2018-KH-1458

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Applicant has now fully litigated two applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

CRICHTON, J., recused.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Cary M. Grossman, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Coastal Bancshares Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

 

|   | • |   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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: February 2, 2006

 

|                                                                                                                              |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Cary M. Grossman

Cary M. Grossman

Co-Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |
Khalil Keari BARNETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4338

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 15, 2019

FLORIDA DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

AFFIRMED.
EX PARTE Alex Demetrius MCMILLIAN

(In re Alex Demetrius McMillian v. James T. Patterson et al.)

2170213

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 11 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 11

 Electing Jennifer A. Hemingway as Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of 
                              the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Thune submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Electing Jennifer A. Hemingway as Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of 
                              the Senate.

    Resolved, That Jennifer A. Hemingway of Georgia be, and she is 
hereby, elected Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017112EN.01003002.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 February 2017 — Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy v Abnormal Load Services (International) Ltd

(Case C-88/17)

(2017/C 112/40)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Zurich Insurance PLC, Metso Minerals Oy

Applicants:

Defendant: Abnormal Load Services (International) Ltd

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

How are the place or places where the service is provided to be determined in accordance with the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) where a contract for the carriage of goods between Member States is concerned and the transport consists of several parts in which different means of transport are used?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

1

---
Case 2:04-cv-00291-J Document 10 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 24
Case 3:05-cv-00844-G Document 18-2 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1139
Case 3:05-cv-00844-G Document 18-2 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1140
Case 3:05-cv-00844-G Document 18-2 Filed 06/29/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1141
Case 3:05-cv-00844-G Document 18-2 Filed 06/29/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1142
Statement

Kenneth A. Spearman, FCA Board Member

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

May 8, 2014

Madam Chair, I want to thank you for making the modernization of the System’s capital 

regulations a priority. Capital is the lifeblood of any financial institution. The proposed rule we 

are considering today should not only strengthen the safety and soundness of the System, but 

also ensure the System’s ability to successfully serve and fulfill its public mission as a GSE for 

generations of farmers and ranchers to come. 

While I believe the FCA’s current capital regulations have served the System and its 

borrower/owners well, I believe it is appropriate for the Agency to modernize the System’s 

capital requirements to make them comparable to the Basel III framework and the rules that the 

U.S. banking agencies have adopted, but also to ensure that the rule take into account the 

cooperative structure and the organization of the System. This proposed rule attempts to strike 

a balance between the Basel III framework goals and the System’s unique cooperative 

structure.

Finally, I want to thank the staff who have spent untold hours developing this Proposed Rule. 

I’ve had excellent briefings from Bill Dunn, Becky Orlich, Gary Van Meter, Jennifer Cohn, and 

J.C. Floyd during the development of the rule.