alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.2(12)**

Consent of Independent Registered Certified Public Accounting Firm 

Trailer Bridge, Inc. 

Jacksonville, Florida 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-88502 and 333-147672) of Trailer Bridge, Inc. ofour report dated March 31, 2011, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a goingconcern. 

/s/ BDO USA, LLP 

Miami,Florida 

March 31, 2011 

 
Page 70
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

WILLIAM FRANKLIN OWENS, #1044468, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:04-CV-0681-D

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas )

Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After conducting a de novo review, the Court finds that the Findings, Conclusions and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are ADOPTED as the findings and

conclusions of the Court.

Signed December 21, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00681-D Document 14 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 59
Joseph Bernard MCADAMS v. STATE

CR-16-0705

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
# C_2017424EN.01001801.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/18

---

Appeal brought on 30 August 2017 by L’Oréal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16 L’Oréal v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-523/17 P)

(2017/C 424/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: L’Oréal (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Guinot

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16, EU:T:2017:451; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2017 in Case T-180/16, EU:T:2017:451;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

| — | reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs; in the alternative, order EUIPO to bear the appellant’s costs in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the appellant, the General Court distorted the facts and arguments which it had made before it and infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. (1)

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, p. 1).

1

---
Motion Granted; Order filed March 27, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00104

- CR

____________ YANTSEY GONZALES , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1303536



### ORDER
Appellant is rep resented by appointed counsel, Emily Munoz DeToto

. Appellant’s brief was originally due May 17, 2013

. We granted an extension of time to file appellant’s brief until March 6, 201 4 . When we granted this extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional
circumstances. No brief was filed. On March 24, 2014 , counsel filed a further request for extension of time to file appellant’ s brief. To date, counse l has
submitted no brief. We grant the request and issue the following order.Accordingly, we order Emily Munoz DeToto to file a brief with the clerk of

this court on or before April 6, 2014 . If counsel does not timely file the brief as ordered, the court may issue an order requiring appointment of new counsel.

PER CURIAM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD MALONEY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MARY BETH BLAIR,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-17747

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01955-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 23, 2014** 

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Richard Maloney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his

diversity action alleging state law claims of negligence and breach of oral contract. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d

FILED

OCT 8 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Maloney’s action because Maloney

failed to allege sufficient facts to show negligence or breach of contract. See

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements

of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”);

Gipson v. Kasey, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (Ariz. 2007) (elements of negligence claim

under Arizona law); Chartone, Inc. v. Bernini, 83 P.3d 1103, 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App.

2004) (elements of breach of contract claim under Arizona law).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-17747
Statement Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
undersigned, Daniel Dror, Chairman & CEO of Hammonds Industries, Inc., Inc,
a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by
Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following
of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2008.






The
undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the above report fairly presents, in all respects, the
financial condition of Hammonds Industries, Inc. and results of its
operations.






Date:
May 14, 2008


Daniel
Dror


Chairman
& CEO /s/ Daniel
Dror
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00091-CV

______________________________

IN RE:

MICHAEL HOOPER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

 

Original Mandamus Proceeding

 

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Hooper & Associates, P.C., has filed a petition asking this Court to issue a writ of

mandamus against the Honorable John Ovard, Administrative Judge of the First Administrative

Region, in Dallas, Texas. In the petition, Relator complains that mandamus should issue because

Ovard did not hold a hearing on Relator's motion to recuse a district judge.

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against "a judge of a district or county

court in the court of appeals district." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004). Dallas

County is not within this court-of-appeals district, and Ovard is not a judge of a district or county

court within this district. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.201(g) (Vernon 2004). We have no

jurisdiction over this petition.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: October 7, 2009

Date Decided: October 8, 2009
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Investigator Initiated Extended 
Clinical Trial (R01 Clinical Trial Required) and NIAID Clinical 
Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01 Clinical Trial 
Required).
    Date: February 12, 2025.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G13A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mairi Noverr, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G13A, Rockville, MD 
20892, (240) 747-7530, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 10, 2025.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-00851 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
# C_2016260EN.01004401.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/44

---

Action brought on 17 May 2016 – Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Scouring Environnement

(Case T-238/16)

(2016/C 260/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, agent, assisted by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Scouring Environnement SARL (Tauriac, France)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of 60 000,00 euros in relation to the Grant Agreement No 287071 ‘BiMed – Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish removal and dry surface treatment’, plus the amount of 3 600,00 euros as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,65 % for the period between 12 September 2014 and 3 May 2016; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of 60 000,00 euros in relation to the Grant Agreement No 287071 ‘BiMed – Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish removal and dry surface treatment’, plus the amount of 3 600,00 euros as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,65 % for the period between 12 September 2014 and 3 May 2016; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.

The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to submit the required reports, financial statements and deliverables of period 1, in accordance with Article 3 of the Grant Agreement, Article II.2(3) and Article II.4 Annex II to the Grant Agreement. Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II to the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of 60 000,00 euros that had already been paid to the coordinator in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Consequently, the Applicant issued debit note for the recovery of the pre-financing, which remains the property of the applicant until final payment.

The facts giving rise to Scouring Environnement SARL’s obligations, as coordinator, are widely undisputed in the present case, as no objection were raised by the defendant in relation to the circumstances of the termination and about the calculation of the amount to be re-paid to the applicant.

Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WHITBURN, LLC, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D15-1639 ) 2D15-4046 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ) CARLOS RAMIREZ; EDERLE ) CONSOLIDATED GREENE RAMIREZ; BOYETTE ) CREEK HOMEOWNERS ) ASSOCIATION, INC., ) ) Appellees. ) )

Opinion filed January 20, 2017.

A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Raul C. Palomino, Jr., and Wayne S. Timmerman, Senior Judges.

Jamie A. Cummings and Heather A. DeGrave of Walters Levine Klingensmith & Thomson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Alan M. Pierce of Liebler Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for Appellee, Bank of
America, N.A.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In appeal number 2D15-1639, we affirm the order on appeal den ying

Whitburn, LLC's motion to intervene in the underlying foreclosu re proceeding. See- 2 - Weber v. Pennymac Loan Trust 2010‒NPL1, 193 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 2 d DCA 2016)

(citing Whitburn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 108 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)).

In appeal number 2D15-4046, we dismiss Whitburn's appeal from t he final judgment of

foreclosure entered in that proceeding. See id.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

NORTHCUTT, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PATRICK TIMOTHY RICHARDSON, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. § NO. 3:04-CV-1396-N

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Signed July 26, 2006.

_________________________________

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01396-N Document 14 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 151
Exhibit 15.1


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








[LETTERHEAD OF DELOITTE ACCOUNTANTS B.V.]








Date


March 28, 2011








Subject


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Numbers: 333-74703, 333-81400, 333-84044, 333-127660, 333-128619, 333-128621, 333-140798, 333-145751, and 333-149577 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement Numbers: 333-162193, and 333-104778-01 on Form F-3 and in Registration Statement Number: 333-108304 on Form F-4 of our independent auditor's report dated March 28, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of RBS Holdings N.V. and subsidiaries, as at December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 and for each of the three years in the period then ended, which expresses an unqualified opinion, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of RBS Holdings N.V for the year ended December 31, 2010.








/s/ Deloitte Accountants B.V.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Language Line Holdings, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, Inc.;



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 quarterly 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 for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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, is made 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 the effectiveness 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 most recent 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, based on 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 function):



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 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 control over financial reporting.



Date: November 19, 2004



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Matthew T. Gibbs II             
|    |  | Matthew T. Gibbs II                 
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer and Director



15
Brian Frederick LUCAS v. STATE

CR-16-1247

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 26, 2017

Dismissed.
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, Elena Pochapski, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  of  Siberian  Energy  Group Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended  September 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or  15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in  such  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents  in all material respects the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Siberian  Energy  Group  Inc.

                              By:/s/ Elena Pochapski
                              --------------------------
                              Elena Pochapski
                              Principal Financial Officer

November 14, 2006

<PAGE>
# C_2016211EN.01006501.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/65

---

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)

(Case T-178/16)

(2016/C 211/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Policolor SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: M. Comanescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG (Düren-Merken, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Policolor’ — Application for registration No 10 277 176

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 346/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | in consequence, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in consequence, annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 16 December 2014 in opposition No B 1 991 457; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 16 December 2014 in opposition No B 1 991 457;

| — | dismiss the opposition made by the intervener with regard to the registration of the European Union trade mark No 10 277 176; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the opposition made by the intervener with regard to the registration of the European Union trade mark No 10 277 176;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred during the procedure before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred during the procedure before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No. 2015/2424. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75(1) of Regulation No. 2015/2424.

---