alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.2



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|NSAII NETHERLAND SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.



CONSENT OF NETHERLAND,
SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.



We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in (i) the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-7070, 333-62708, 333-73878, 333-112670, 333-105015 and 333-111448); (ii) the Post Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to Registration Statement on Form S-4
(Registration No. 333-70268); and (iii) the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-108643); each of GlobalSantaFe Corporation (the Company), of our report dated February 25, 2005, relating to the oil and gas reserves
and revenues of certain interests of Challenger Minerals, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, as of December 31, 2004, included as Exhibit 99.2 of this Form 10-K/A amendment to the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2004 originally filed
on March 3, 2005, and of the data extracted from such report appearing in the Supplemental Oil and Gas Disclosure (unaudited) in such Annual Report on Form 10-K. We hereby consent to all references to such report and/or this firm in the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for 2004, this Form 10-K/A amendment, and in each Registration Statement referenced above. We further consent to our being named as an expert in those Registration Statements and in each Prospectus to which
any such Registration Statement relates.



Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc.By:

/s/    DANNY D. SIMMONSDanny D. SimmonsExecutive Vice President




Houston, Texas

April 6, 2005
Case 3:05-cv-00951-M Document 17 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 103
# C_2018328EN.01002401.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/24

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — GS v Bundeszentalamt für Steuern

(Case C-440/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Direct taxation - Freedom of establishment - Directive 2011/96/EU - Article 1(2) - Parent company - Holding company - Withholding tax on profits distributed to a non-resident parent holding company - Exemption - Tax evasion, avoidance or abuse - Presumption))

(2018/C 328/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GS

Defendant: Bundeszentalamt für Steuern

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2013/13/EU of 13 May 2013, and Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a withholding tax on dividends awarded by a resident subsidiary to its non-resident parent company, but which excludes the right of the latter to obtain reimbursement of or exemption from such withholding tax where, first, the shares in that parent company are held by persons who would not be entitled to such a reimbursement or such an exemption if they had received the dividends from such a subsidiary directly and that parent company has not earned its gross income for the trading year concerned from its own economic activity and, second, one of the two conditions laid down by that legislation is satisfied, namely either there are no economic or other significant reasons for the involvement of that parent company, or that company does not take part in general economic commerce with an establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, without taking account of the organisational, economic or other significant features of the undertakings which are connected with the parent company in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.

---
---

Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to18 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 Sound Revolution Inc.
  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2007,
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  Report), I, Robin Ram, Chief 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 and results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: October 19, 2007

|By: | /s/
      Robin Ram                          | 
|--- | -------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Robin Ram                                    | 
|    | Director, President, Chief Executive Officer | 

---
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:*                         January 16, 2025.                    

# 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 January 10, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1281 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1105, K2025-1104.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00930 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7318

ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA00-1961-DKC) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 7, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Albert Curtis Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Mills v. Corcoran , No. CA-00- 1961-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 29, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
DERRICK OWEN CARPENTER

, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 234

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 28, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. James H. Daniel , Judge

.

David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen, Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville , for Appellant.

Christie S. Utt, General Counsel, and Jason Helfant, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, Lake Worth , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED

. See Arthur v. State , 818 So. 2d 589, 592 n.4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)

(stating that the Department’s records are “prima facie evidence” that the driver2 committed the offenses identified in its record s, and that the burden then shifts to the

driver to dispute the evidence).

ROWE

, MAKAR

, and JAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Jarrett Michael SMITH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-3352

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 report of Ironclad Performance Wear Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas
      Kreig, Interim Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:





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





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








/s/
      Thomas Kreig





Thomas
      Kreig


Interim
      Chief Financial Officer


August
      14, 2008
Charles Crawford BYRD v. Frances B. BYRD

2160599

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2018063EN.01000402.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 26 October 2017 — Eurowings GmbH v Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp

(Case C-615/17)

(2018/C 063/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurowings GmbH

Applicant:

Defendants: Klaus Rövekamp, Christiane Rupp

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Can a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also exist when a passenger does not catch a directly connecting flight due to a relatively minor delay in arrival, with the result that there is a delay in arrival at the final destination of three hours or more, but the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the booking confirmation was issued by a tour operator who combined the flights for its customer?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---
Randal Thomas ROSADO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5041

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 23, 2019

FLORIDA DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to
                      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual Report of Kendle International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Karl Brenkert III, 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, to the best of
my knowledge, 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: March 15, 2004*

/s/ Karl Brenkert III
Karl Brenkert III
Chief Financial Officer


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

* Filed herewith on March 18, 2004.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 107131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31431]

[[Page 107131]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3240-040; Project No. 6689-018; Project No. 3342-025] New

Briar Hydro Associates, LLC; New Hampshire Rolfe Canal 
Hydroelectric Project, New Hampshire Penacook Upper Falls Hydroelectric 
Project, New Hampshire Penacook Lower Falls Hydroelectric Project; 
Notice of Waiver Period for Water Quality Certification Application

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Requests: November 4, 2024.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Requests: One 
year, November 4, 2025.
    If the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services fails or 
refuses to act on the water quality certification requests on or before 
the above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived 
pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1).

    Dated: December 23, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-31431 Filed 12-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 90

- 00064

- CV

DAN BOYLES, JR., Appellant

V.

SUSAN LEIGH KERR, Appellee

On Appeal from the 269th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court No. 86

- 29876

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O RDER

As part of the appellate record in this matter, original exhibits were transferred to this

Court for our use when this appeal was before us. Specifically, original documents marked

“Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 and 22; and Defendant’s Exhibit 13” were transferred to this Court. It

appears to this Court that the proper repository for these exhibits should be the Harris County

D istrict C lerk ’ s O ffice. Accordingly, we order the clerk of this Court to transfer the original

exhibits filed in this appeal into the keepi ng of the Harris County D istrict C lerk by mailing the

exhibits to the district clerk via certified mail, return receipt requested.

We further order the Harris County District Clerk, Chris Daniel , on receipt of said

exhibits, to sign and return to this Cou rt the enclosed receipt for said exhibits.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: January 2 3 , 20153 RECEIPT FOR ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

I, Chris Daniel

, Harris County District Clerk, hereby acknowledge receipt of the

following original exhibits from the Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, Texarkana,

Texas, in the case of Dan Boyles, Jr. v. Susan Leigh Kerr , appellate cause number 06

- 90

- 000 64

-

CV

, trial court caus e number 86

- 29876: original documents marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 and

22; and Defendant’s Exhibit 13

. ”

___________________________________ Chris Daniel Harris County District Clerk

Date :

__________________
J.T., a Child, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D19-952

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2019

Robert Wesley, Public Defender, Orlando, and Amelia Edwards, Assistant Public Defender, Orlando, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the February 22, 2019, judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. CJ17-3275-O, in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

ORFINGER, WALLIS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51134 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. ANDRES NARANJO-SANTOS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-133-ALL Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Andres Naranjo-Santos (Naranjo) appealsthesentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry, in violation of8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court erred in increasing his sentence based on a prior drugtrafficking conviction which was neither pleaded nor proved and that it erred in determining that his prior conviction for simple possession was an aggravated felony. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 19, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-51134

2 Naranjo, however, has been released from federal custody and removed from the United States, leaving him subject only to an undischarged term of supervised release. Because Naranjo has requested relief in the form of resentencing, relief we cannot grant, his appeal is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Ci r. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1216 (2008). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel., §

JOHN BECKER, §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0627-L

§ (Consolidated with 3:05-CV-2301-L)

TOOLS & METALS, INC., et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the court is Relator Robert B. Spencer’s Updated Application for Previously

Unsubmitted Statutory Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. 440), filed April 2, 2013. In light of the *

parties’ Notice of Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Doc. 441), filed on April 12, 2013, the court denies as moot

Relator Robert B. Spencer’s Updated Application for Previously Unsubmitted Statutory Attorneys’

Fees and Costs (Doc. 440). The court truly appreciates the parties’ efforts in reaching a settlement

regarding the remaining issues in the case.

It is so ordered this 19th day of April, 2013.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge 

A sealed version of the same Application was filed as Doc. 439. Accordingly, this order disposes of Doc. 439

*

and Doc. 440.

Order - Solo Page

Case 3:05-cv-00627-L Document 442 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID 15180
Alex Robin MORENO FAJARDO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2012

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD, ) 

ID # 623668, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-0929-N

) 

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings

and Conclusions of the Court.

For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge, the Court hereby DENIES petitioner’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis. By separate judgment, the Court dismisses this action for the failure of petitioner to comply

with a previous sanction order entered against him by the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas. 

SIGNED June 14, 2005.

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00929-N Document 4 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 64