alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Edward Terino, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2005 of Arlington Tankers, Ltd.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation 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 periodspresented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [Not applicable];(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’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 financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect 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 financialreporting.       /s/ Edward Terino         Name: Edward Terino    Title: Co- Chief Executive Office and  Date: November 14, 2005 Chief Financial Officer
Corey BERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4472

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
SCPW-21-0000510

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MARCUS PONO LAKE, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE GARY W.B. CHANG, Judge of the Circuit Court of the

First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the registered

holder of Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan

Trust 2004-HE7 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series

2004-HE7; VIOLA INNOCENCIA FAO; LANIKUHANA PATIO HOMES;

1326 KEEAUMOKU LLC; MILILANI TOWN ASSOCIATION; STEPHEN W. FISHER,

individually and as Trustee for the Stephen W. Fischer Revocable

Trust; REALTY PROFESSIONALS LLC, a Hawaii limited liability

company; and JRS HUI, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company,

Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(Civil No. 1CC151001975)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Marcus Lake’s petition

for writ of mandamus, and the record, on September 28, 2021, the

circuit court entered an “Order Denying ‘Defendant, Crossclaim

Plaintiff, and Third-Party Plaintiff Marcus Pono Lake’s Motion

for Summary Judgment’ Filed on March 14, 2019,” thereby ruling on

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-21-0000510

12-OCT-2021

10:59 AM

Dkt. 6 ODDP
petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, which is the subject of

the petition. The relief that petitioner seeks in the petition

has been addressed by the circuit court’s order and, thus, the

requested extraordinary writ is not necessary. See Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a

writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue

unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right

to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately

the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Accordingly, 

It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is

denied. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 12, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Shawn OConnor, Chief Executive Officer of
Pharsight Corporation (the Company), and William Frederick, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2005, and to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 23rd day of June 2006.



/s/    SHAWN M. OCONNORShawn M. OConnor, Chief Executive Officer




/s/    WILLIAM FREDERICKWilliam Frederick, Chief Financial Officer
Kenneth Carl GUY, Appellant, v. PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D18-2254

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 27, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20094-20095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10021]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

First Union Corporation; Acquisition of Company Engaged in 
Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The organization listed in this notice has applied under Sec.  
225.23(a)(2) or (f) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(2) or 
(f)) for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to acquire or control voting securities or assets of 
a company engaged in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question 
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
May 9, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 
23261: [[Page 20095]] 
    1. First Union Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina; to acquire 
United Financial Corporation of South Carolina, Inc., Greenwood, South 
Carolina, and thereby indirectly acquire United Savings, FSB, 
Greenwood, South Carolina, and Home Federal Savings Bank of South 
Carolina, Rock Hill, South Carolina, and thereby engage in operating a 
federal savings bank holding company and its subsidiary federal savings 
banks, pursuant to Sec. 225.25(b)(9) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 18, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-10021 Filed 4-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
# C_2018039EN.01003901.xml

| 2.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/39

---

Corrigendum to the statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 2

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 25 of 24 January 2018
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 25 of 24 January 2018

(2018/C 39/13)

On page 2, table ‘Revenue’, for the row relating to Chapter 1 2 — European Union special funding for specific projects:

| — | in column ‘Budget 2017’: instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Budget 2017’: instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’,

| — | in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’.

On page 2, table ‘Revenue’: for the row relating to Title 1 — Total:

| — | in column ‘Budget 2017’: instead of ‘15 135 600’ read ‘15 475 600’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Budget 2017’: instead of ‘15 135 600’ read ‘15 475 600’,

| — | in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘15 135 600’ read ‘15 475 600’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘15 135 600’ read ‘15 475 600’.

On page 2, table ‘Revenue’, for the row relating to Grand total:

| — | in column ‘Budget 2017’: instead of ‘15 808 631,84’ read ‘16 148 631,84’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Budget 2017’: instead of ‘15 808 631,84’ read ‘16 148 631,84’,

| — | in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘15 828 389,18’ read ‘16 168 389,18’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’: instead of ‘15 828 389,18’ read ‘16 168 389,18’.

On page 3, table ‘Expenditure’, for the row relating to Chapter 4 1 — Projects:

| — | in column ‘Appropriations 2017’, instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Appropriations 2017’, instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’,

| — | in column ‘New amount’, instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’, instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’.

On page 3, table ‘Expenditure’, for the row relating to Title 4 — Total:

| — | in column ‘Appropriations 2017’, instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Appropriations 2017’, instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’,

| — | in column ‘New amount’, instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’, instead of ‘—’ read ‘340 000’.

On page 3, table ‘Expenditure’, for the row relating to Grand total:

| — | in column ‘Appropriations 2017’, instead of ‘15 808 631,84’ read ‘16 148 631,84’, |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘Appropriations 2017’, instead of ‘15 808 631,84’ read ‘16 148 631,84’,

| — | in column ‘New amount’, instead of ‘15 828 389,18’ read ‘16 168 389,18’. |
| --- | --- |

—

in column ‘New amount’, instead of ‘15 828 389,18’ read ‘16 168 389,18’.

---
Case No. 17-cv-00436-NC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID RANDOLPH SCOTT,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITIZEN WATCH COMPANY OF 

AMERICA, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-00436-NC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Re: Dkt. No. 30 

Defendants Citizen Watch Company of America, Inc. and Sterling Jewelers, Inc. 

moved to dismiss claims 1–3 and 5–9 of plaintiff David Randolph Scott’s first amended 

complaint, in which Scott alleges violations of his rights to privacy and publicity under 

common law and federal and California state statute. Scott’s ninth cause of action alleges 

unjust enrichment. However, unjust enrichment “is not a standalone cause of action” in 

California. Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753, 762 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Instead, it “describe[s] the theory underlying a claim that a defendant has been unjustly 

conferred a benefit ‘through mistake, fraud, coercion, or request.’” Id. (citing 55 Cal. Jur. 

3d Restitution § 2). Scott does not allege a quasi-contract claim alleging unjust conferral 

of a benefit through mistake, fraud, coercion, or request. Thus, defendants’ motion to 

dismiss is GRANTED, with prejudice, as to Scott’s unjust enrichment claim. 

Scott’s remaining claims are facially plausible based on the facts alleged, so 

defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as to claims 1–3 and 5–8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 28, 2017 _____________________________________ 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:17-cv-00436-NC Document 62 Filed 06/28/17 Page 1 of 1
STRATS Trust for AMBAC Financial Group, Inc. Securities, Series 2007-1 10-K

Exhibit
35.1



SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

U.S.
Bank Trust National Association



The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of U.S. Bank Trust National Association (the “Trustee”),
as Trustee in respect of the STRATS Trust for AMBAC Financial Group, Inc. Securities, Series 2007-1 (the “Trust”),
does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | The
                                         Bank is Trustee under the Trust Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The
                                         undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Trust Agreement to execute
                                         and deliver this Certificate to the Trust.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | This
                                         Certificate is delivered pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s
                                         Regulation AB.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | A
                                         review of the Trustee’s activities during the twelve-month period ended December
                                         31, 2017 and of its performance under the Trust Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 5. | To
                                         the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all of its
                                         obligations under the Trust Agreement in all material respects throughout such twelve-month
                                         period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 20th day of March 2018.



|       |                                                            |  | 
|------ | ---------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|By:    | /s/
                                         Amy B. Byrnes | 
|Name:  | Amy
    B. Byrnes                                          | 
|Title: | Senior
    Vice President                                  |
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2018264DE.01002701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 23.10.2018 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 264/27 |

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2017/717 der Kommission vom 10. April 2017 mit Bestimmungen für die Anwendung der Verordnung (EU) 2016/1012 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates im Hinblick auf die Muster für Tierzuchtbescheinigungen für Zuchttiere und deren Zuchtmaterial

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 109 vom 26. April 2017](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2017_109_R_TOC)
)

Seite 20, Anhang I, Abschnitt C „Zuchtbescheinigung für den Handel mit Eizellen reinrassiger Zuchttiere“, Fußnote 11:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(11) | Bei mehr als einer Eizelle pro Paillette oder anderem Behälter muss die Zahl der Eizellen eindeutig angegeben werden. Eine Paillette oder ein anderer Behälter darf nur Eizellen von einem einzigen reinrassigen Zuchttier enthalten.“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(11) | Dabei muss es sich um einen zeichnungsberechtigten Vertreter des Zuchtverbands, einer zuständigen Behörde gemäß Artikel 30 Absatz 2 Buchstabe b der Verordnung (EU) 2016/1012 oder einer Embryo-Erzeugungseinheit gemäß Artikel 31 Absatz 1 der genannten Verordnung handeln.“ |

---
Exhibit 23.2

HAN KUN LAW OFFICES

Suite 906, Office Tower C1, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Avenue, Beijing 100738, P. R. China

TEL: (86 10) 8525 5500; FAX: (86 10) 8525 5511 / 8525 5522

April 16, 2013

China Digital TV Holding
Co., Ltd.

Jingmeng High-Tech Building B, 4th Floor

No. 5 Shangdi East Road

Haidian District, Beijing

Peoples Republic of China 100085

Dear
Sir/Madam:

We hereby consent to the reference of our name under the heading Risk Factors, Regulation and
Critical Accounting Policies in China Digital TV Holding Co., Ltd.s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the month of April 2013.
In giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in each case, as amended, or the
regulations promulgated thereunder.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Very truly yours,      
|                       
|/s/ Han Kun Law Offices
|Han Kun Law Offices
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE RH, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, CASE NO. 17-cv-00554-YGR 

ORDER DIRECTING ADDITIONAL 

SUBMISSION

Re: Dkt. No. 135 

The Court has received and reviewed plaintiff’s unopposed motion for preliminary 

approval of class settlement and the reply filed in support thereof. (Dkt. Nos. 135, 136.) Attached 

to the motion, plaintiffs submit the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. (See Dkt. No. 135-1 

at ECF 2-41 (“Settlement Agreement”).) Therein, the parties represent that there exists a 

“confidential supplemental agreement [between RH and] Lead Plaintiffs (the “Supplemental 

Agreement”) . . . which is being executed concurrently [with the Settlement Agreement], shall not 

be filed with the Court[.]” (Id. ¶ 41.) 

Parties further stipulate that the Supplemental Agreement’s “terms shall not be disclosed in 

any other matter (other than the statements [within the Settlement Agreement] and in the Notice, 

to the extent necessary in order for Defendants to comply with the provisions of CAFA or as 

otherwise provided in the Supplemental Agreement) unless the Court otherwise directs or a 

dispute arises between Lead Plaintiffs and RH concerning the Supplemental Agreement’s 

interpretation or application in which event the Parties shall submit the Supplemental Agreement 

to the Court in camera and request that the Court afford it confidential treatment.” (Id.) 

By no later than 5 p.m. tomorrow, June 13, 2019, the parties SHALL submit the 

Supplemental Agreement, in full, to the Court. Parties may submit the document in camera. 

Failure to submit as directed may result in denial of the pending motion for preliminary approval. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 12, 2019 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:17-cv-00554-YGR Document 137 Filed 06/12/19 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

January 28, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00584

- CV

TITLE SOURCE, INC ., Reporters Committee for Freedom o f the Press, and Houston Forward Times, Appellants

v.

HOUSECANARY, INC ., d/k/a Canary Analytics, Inc.,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI06300 Honorable David A. Canales , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On January 2 6 , 20 2 2

, appellant filed (1) a Resident Attorney’s Motion in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Helgi C. Walker and (2) an Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Helgi C. Walker , each requesting this court allow Helgi C. Walker to
appear pro hac vice to serve as appellate co

- counsel for appellant. The motions are GRANTED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on t his 28th day of January, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2010

d0120 

# Order

January 27, 2010

139613

DANIEL KARRIP and MARY L. KARRIP,Plaintiffs/CounterDefendants-Appellants,

v SC: 139613 COA: 283867 Kent CC: 06-004602-CH HAMILTON MORTGAGE COMPANY,Defendant/CounterPlaintiff/Third Party Plaintiff/ Cross-Defendant-Appellee,

and

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,Defendant/CrossPlaintiff-Appellee,

and

THOMAS PAEPKE and BETTY L. PAEPKE, Individually and as Trustee of THE PAEPKE LIVING TRUST and TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Third Party Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the July 27, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Daniel TONEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4204

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.