alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Arbor Entech Corporation (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Shefts,
      Chief
      Financial Officer and Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.





/S/
                MARK SHEFTSMark
                SheftsChief
                Financial Officer andActing
                Chief Executive OfficerSeptember
                12, 2008
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19I0284. STATE OF GEORGIA v. JIGNESHKUMAR PATEL et al.

In November 2018, the State of Georgia filed a complaint for civil forfeiture

of certain property pursuant to OCGA § 9-16-12. Jigneshkumar Patel and Toral Patel

filed claims to the property, and the trial court ultimately dismissed the State’s

complaint on June 24, 2019. The State then filed this timely application for

interlocutory appeal. Jigneshkumar Patel and Toral Patelfiled a motion to dismissthe

application arguing that our interlocutory appellate procedures were inapplicable

because the trial court’s order “was a final order as defined by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a)

(1).”

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), a direct appeal may be taken from “[a]ll final

judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below,”

except as provided in OCGA § 5-6-35, the discretionary appealstatute. Here, the trial

court’s June 24 order is a final order that dismissed the complaint and announced the

return of all of the property identified in the complaint to Jigneshkumar Patel and

Toral Patel, pending any appeal. Additionally, this case does not fall within the

categories of cases governed by OCGA § 5-6-35. “This Court will grant a timely

application for interlocutory review if the order complained of is subject to direct

appeal and the applicants have not otherwise filed a notice of appeal.” Spivey v.

Hembree, 268 Ga. App. 485, 486, n. 1 (602 SE2d 246) (2004).

Accordingly, this application for interlocutory appeal is hereby GRANTED,

and the motion to dismiss is DENIED. The State shall have ten days from the date of 

August 07, 2019
this order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court, if it has not already done so. The

trial court clerk is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the appellate record.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/07/2019
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2020419EN.01003601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 11.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 419/36 |

---

Corrigendum to Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 321 of 17 December 2018](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2018_321_R_TOC)
)

On page 205, Annex XI, point 3:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘3. | Interoperability for car radio receivers |

Any car radio receiver integrated in a new vehicle of category M which is made available on the market for sale or rent in the Union from 21 December 2020 shall comprise ...’,

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘3. | Interoperability for car radio receivers |

Any car radio receiver integrated in a new vehicle of category M which is placed on the market for sale or rent in the Union from 21 December 2020 shall comprise ...’.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1427 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1427

    To amend title 31, United States Code, to eliminate the 10-year 
              limitation on the collection of nontax debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

  Mr. Platts introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 31, United States Code, to eliminate the 10-year 
              limitation on the collection of nontax debt.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF 10-YEAR LIMITATION ON COLLECTION OF NONTAX 
              DEBT BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFSET.

    Section 3716(e) of title 31, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:
    ``(e) This section--
            ``(1) applies to a claim under this subchapter regardless 
        of the period it has been outstanding; and
            ``(2) does not apply when a statute explicitly prohibits 
        using administrative offset or setoff to collect the claim or 
        type of claim involved.''.
                                 <all>
```
Willie B. SOUTHERN, petitioner, v. ATLANTIC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.

No. 12-9373.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Milos VAVRA, et al., petitioners, v. David BAKALAR.

No. 12-1160.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 1 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 2 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 3 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 4 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 5 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 6 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 7 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 8 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 9 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 10 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 11 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 12 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 13 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 14 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 15 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 16 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 17 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 18 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 19 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 20 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 21 of 22
case 1:13-cv-00071-RLM-RBC document 1 filed 03/14/13 page 22 of 22
John E. NAILS, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 12-9445.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-146804 and Form S-3 No. 333-155235) of DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our reports datedFebruary 26, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

 

McLean, Virginia

February 26, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Certification Pursuant to Section 906


of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the Annual Report of Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2015, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K of the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Justin Enbody, 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 my knowledge:


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


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


In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.





Date:March 27, 2015/s/ JUSTIN ENBODYJustin EnbodyChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18. U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 27, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00593

- CV

Alvin M. BURNS , I.M. Burns, Dimmit County, Hakim Dermish, Robert L. Ramirez and Edward J. Dryden

, Appellants

v.

ROSETTA RESOURCES, LTD ., a/k/a Rosetta Resources, Inc., Eusebio Cantu Torres, Eusebio Torres, Jr., Gladiator Energy Services, LLC,

Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial Distric t Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 07

- 11738

- DCV Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record in this appeal was due on October 20, 2016

. One volume of the reporter’s record has been filed to date. One of the other court reporter s responsible for preparing the reporter’s record has filed a notification of late reporter’s record stating that appellant s ha ve failed to request and pay
, or make arrangements to pay

, the court reporter’s fee for preparing the record.

It is therefore OR DERED that appellant s provide written proof to this court within ten (10) days from the date of this order that: (1) a written request has been made to each court

reporter for preparation of the ir portion of the reporter’s record pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 34.6(b)(1); and (2) either (i) each court reporter ’ s fee ha s been paid or arrangements have been made to pay each court reporter ’ s fee, or (ii) appellant s are entitled to appeal without paying the

court reporter s ’ fees.

If appellant s fail to respond to this order within the time provided, the appellant’s brief

will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in the appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are abated pending a response to this order.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of October, 20 16

.

_____________________________ ______ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

NATIONAL CITY POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant.

No. 21-56062 

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01360-LAB-MSB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Keith Wayne Sekerke appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 26 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-56062 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of property in violation 

of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 

2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Sekerke’s action because Sekerke

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a meaningful post-deprivation remedy 

was unavailable to him. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531-33 (1984) 

(neither negligent nor intentional deprivations of property constitute a due process 

violation if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available); Barnett v. Centoni, 

31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy for any property deprivations.”).

We reject as unpersuasive Sekerke’s contention that he may not have a 

meaningful post-deprivation remedy based on the hypothetical application of 

unspecified state law immunity. 

We do not consider Sekerke’s Fourth Amendment claim because Sekerke 

failed to replead it in his operative complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 

F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (claims dismissed with leave to amend are 

waived if not repled).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 
3 21-56062 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

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

Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 23) is granted. All 

other requests are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
AMENDMENT TO RICHARDS BAY SLAG SALES AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDING  AGREEMENT dated October 31, 2003 is made by and between  RICHARDS
BAY IRON AND TITANIUM  (PROPRIETARY)  LIMITED, a South African  corporation with
offices at Richards  Bay,  Natal,  South Africa  (hereafter  called  "RBIT") and
KRONOS  INC.,  a  Delaware  corporation  with  offices at 5 Cedar  Brook  Drive,
Cranbury, New Jersey, 08512, USA (hereinafter "Buyer").

WHEREAS RBIT and Buyer  entered  into an agreement  for the purchase and sale of
titanium  bearing slag  produced at RBIT's plant at Richards Bay,  Natal,  South
Africa (hereafter "RBIT Product") dated as of the 1st day of May, 1995,  amended
as of  November  3,1997,  May 1,  1999,  June 1,  2001  and  December  20,  2002
(hereinafter called the "Agreement");

WHEREAS the parties  wish to amend the  Agreement  for the sale and  purchase of
RBIT Product, effective January 1, 2003;

NOW THEREFORE,  for and in consideration of the covenants and conditions  herein
contained, the parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Article V.A.5. shall be replaced with the following

     5. For 2003, the Basic Price of RB Slag shall be * per ton. *

          For 2004,  the Basic Price of RB Slag shall be * per ton.  For 2005 to
          2007  inclusively,  the Basic  Price of RB Slag shall be the  previous
          year's Basic Price plus Escalation as herein defined.

                                        *

          Should  RBIT  offer  spot  quantities  of RB Slag  for  sale to  major
          contract customers during the Term of the Agreement, Kronos Inc. shall
          be offered a pro-rata share of such spot  quantities in the proportion
          that its Contracted  Quantity  bears to the  contracted  quantities of
          such other major contract customers and have 7 days in which to accept
          or decline such offer.

2.   The  parties  hereby  ratify and confirm  the terms and  conditions  of the
     Agreement not specifically amended pursuant to this Amending Agreement.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  have caused this  Amending  Agreement  to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives.


RICHARDS BAY IRON AND TITANIUM                   KRONOS INC.
(PROPRIETARY) LIMITED


     ----------------------------                 ----------------------------
By:    /s/ John George Deyzel                By:    /s/ D.C. Weaver


Name:  John George Deyzel                    Name:  D.C. Weaver
       --------------------------                   --------------------------


 Title:  MAN. DIR. / CEO                     Title:  VP Development
         ------------------------                    -------------------------





* Information omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, David OToole, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 (this report) of Abraxis BioScience, Inc. (registrant);
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30,
2009



/s/     David OToole David OToole Chief Financial
Officer
#### Eleanor S. BLUE, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

No. 04-3122.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 20, 2004.

George T. Underwood, Jr., Principal Attorney, Knoxville, TN, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey A. Gauger, Principal Attorney, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Eleanor S. Blue moves to voluntarily dismiss her petition for review.*

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted and the petition for review is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

*

 It is not this court’s usual practice to designate a dismissal as with or without prejudice.
La importancia de enfriar los alimentos de forma apropiada.Mi nombre es Carlos. Soy un cocinero en un restaurante mejicano. Cocino los frijoles todos los días.

Después de 24 horas, todavía los recipientes tapados 

y colocados uno encima 

del otro se encontraban a 

78 ̊F (25.5 ̊F).

Después de cocinar los frijoles, los coloco en recipientes en la cámara frigorífi ca.

Cada día, recaliento los frijoles antes de ponerlos en la mesa de vapor.Un día, un niñita llamada Emily, ordenó tacos y frijoles.

Más tarde, Emily spuso muy enfermcon vómitos y diarrea. Tuvo que ser ingresada en ehospital.

El departamento de salud dijo que los frijoles habían hecho que nuestros clientes se enfermaran. Los frijoles no se enfriaron lo sufi cientemente rápido en los recipientes tapados y colocados uno encima del otro.

Nunca quise hacer que algunuestro restaurante enfría Los métodos de enfriamienColocar los alimentos bajo llanos y baños de hielo.Separar los alimentos en reponerlos bajo refrigeraciónUsar equipo de enfriamientAgitar los alimentos en un un baño de hielo.Otros métodos efi caces.

Protege a todos.

Enfría los alimentos de forma
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

SANDRA RHODES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING 

PHARMACY INC. aka NEW ENGLAND 

COMPOUNDING CENTER, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 12-cv-00841-JVB-CAN

JUDGE: JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

AMERIDOSE, LLC’S CORPORATE 

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Defendant Ameridose, LLC, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, makes the 

following corporate disclosure: 

Ameridose does not have any parent corporations and no publicly-held corporation owns 

10% or more of Ameridose’s stock. 

Dated this 21st day of February, 2013 

case 3:12-cv-00841-JVB-CAN document 24 filed 02/21/13 page 1 of 3
2 

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Knight S. Anderson 

Knight S. Anderson (17216-53) 

Tucker Ellis LLP 

925 Euclid Avenue 

Suite 1150 

Cleveland, OH 44115-1414 

Tel: 216.592.5000 

Fax: 216.592.5009 

E-mail: knight.anderson@tuckerellis.com 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose LLC

 

case 3:12-cv-00841-JVB-CAN document 24 filed 02/21/13 page 2 of 3
3 

013260.000009 1592815.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 21, 2013 using the ECF system that sent notification of this filing to all ECFregistered counsel of record via e-mail generated by the Court’s ECF system. 

 /s/Knight S. Anderson 

Attorney for Defendant Ameridose, LLC 

case 3:12-cv-00841-JVB-CAN document 24 filed 02/21/13 page 3 of 3