alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31
 CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY SECTION 302(A)
OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under my 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 quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this quarterly 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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Alain MorlotAlain MorlotPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON
5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD
SUITE 800 EAST
DALLAS, TEXAS 75244  February 23, 2007   EnCana
Corporation 1800-855 2nd
Street SW Calgary,
Alberta, Canada T2P2S5  Ladies and
Gentlemen:  We hereby
consent to the use of the name DeGolyer and MacNaughtonand reference
to our name and our Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2006 on Certain
Properties owned by EnCana Oil & Gas
USA Inc. SEC Case (our Report)
evaluating a portion of EnCana Corporations petroleum and natural gas reserves
as of December 31, 2006, and the
information contained in our Report, as described or incorporated by reference
in EnCana Corporations Annual Report on Form 40F for the year ended December
31, 2006.  Very truly yours,/s/ DeGolyer and MacNaughtonDeGOLYERand MacNAUGHTON
# C_2017195EN.01003001.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/30

---

Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 21 April 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB

(Case T-158/17 R)

((Interim measures - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of communication services via a metropolitan area network for the buildings and offices of the European Investment Bank Group in Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))

(2017/C 195/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Post Telecom SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes, C. Saettel and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams, P. Kiiver and C. Solazzo, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Belmessieri and B. Schutyser, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of the decision of the EIB of 6 January 2017 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant for lot No 1 of call for tenders OP-1305, entitled ‘Metropolitan area network and wide area network communication services for the European Investment Bank Group’, and of the decision to award that lot to another tenderer.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 15 March 2017 in Case T-158/17 R is revoked. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 15 March 2017 in Case T-158/17 R is revoked.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
Exhibit 32

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 Quarterly Report of Triplecrown Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |        |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: August 10, 2009 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Jonathan J. Ledecky                     
|                      |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Jonathan J. Ledecky                         
|                      |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Secretary                     
|                      |  |  |  |        |  | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 10, 2009 |  |  |  |        |  | /s/ Eric J. Watson                          
|                      |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Eric J. Watson                              
|                      |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chairman of the Board and Treasurer         
|                      |  |  |  |        |  | (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                           and
                                                                  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 Annual Report of Hosting Site Network Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Scott Vicari, Chief Executive and 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;

            (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.

      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 and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Scott Vicari
-----------------------------------------
Name:  Scott Vicari
Title: Chief Executive and Financial Officer
Date:  December 6, 2006
143 So. 460

#### TYSON v. WINTER.

5 Div. 117.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 9, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1932.

C. E. Fuller, of La Fayette, for appellant.

Will O. Walton, of La Fayette, for appellee.

*438BROWN, J.

Action on the ease by appellee against appellant for negligently running an automobile upon or against plaintiff's cow. The case was submitted to the jury under the second count of the complaint, and it is urged that this count is indefinite in its averments as to the place of the injury. If it be conceded that the count is subject to this criticism, and that the demurrer thereto should have been sustained, yet it appears from the complaint itself, and the undisputed evidence, that the defendant was personally present at the time and place of the collision, and no injury resulted to him from this ruling. Bennett v. Bennett, 224 Ala. 335, 140 So. 378.

Defendant’s plea 2 alleges that: “The plaintiff was *guilty of negligence*that proximately contributed to the injury complained of in this, that plaintiff permitted said cow, alleged to have been injured *together with a number of other cattle*unattended by a keeper or other person, to be upon a public highway, in a stock law district, and that said alleged injuries were *proosimately caused by such negligence*of the plaintiff in permitting said cow to be upon said highway where defendant was driving his automobile,” etc. (Italics supplied.)

Plea 3 avers that the “injury was the result of an unavoidable accident on the part of this defendant *and was caused prosoimately by said cow having been hooked by another one*of plaintiff’s cows and being thereby pushed in front of and against defendant’s moving automobile, *and that defendant did all in his ■power to avoid striking said cow but was unable to do so.”*(Italics supplied.)

Under the evidence the question as to whether or not defendant was guilty of negligence was for the jury.

Charge 5, refused to defendant, assumed that the facts hypothesized therein constituted contributory negligence and was invasive of the province of the jury. Garing v. Boynton et al. (Ala. Sup.) 138 So. 279; 1 Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 So. 80, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 543; Smith v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 219 Ala. 679, 123 So. 57; Mobile Light & R. R. Co. v. Forcheimer, 221 Ala. 139, 127 So. 825.

There is no merit in appellant’s contention of fatal variance between the averments and proof as to the time of the injury, and moreover the question was not raised .on the trial as required by rule 34 of Circuit Court Practice (Code 1922, vol. 4, p. 906).

We have examined the several rulings on evidence and find nothing therein that requires treatment.

There is no reversible error on the record. Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

1

224 Ala. 22.
#### In re RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGE.

No. 01-07.

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Jan. 2, 2007.

ORDER

GREENE, Judge:

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1), and in order to meet the needs of the Court, recall-eligible retired judge Frank Q. Ne-beker, is recalled to perform substantial service to the Court. The Court requires Judge Nebeker’s service to assist in reviewing and deciding an unprecedented number of appeals now pending before the Court.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, effective January 2, 2007, Frank Q. Nebeker, shall commence service as a judge of the Court until March 30, 2007.
# C_2020271EN.01000802.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 June 2020 — European Commission v RQ

(Case C-831/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Immunity from legal proceedings - Decision waiving immunity - Act adversely affecting a person - Rights of the defence)

(2020/C 271/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by J.-P. Keppenne and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: RQ (represented by É. Boigelot, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 October 2018, RQ v Commission (T-29/17, EU:T:2018:717); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 October 2018, RQ v Commission (T-29/17, EU:T:2018:717);

| 2. | Dismisses the first part of the fifth plea in law in the action before the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the first part of the fifth plea in law in the action before the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the first to fourth grounds of appeal and on the second and third parts of the fifth ground of appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the first to fourth grounds of appeal and on the second and third parts of the fifth ground of appeal;

| 4. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The costs are reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER 21 MC 102 (AKH)

LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER

SITE LITIGATION

CAMILLA MAZARESE, as Proposed Administratrix of 07-CV-5561 (AKH)

JOHN MAZARESE,

NOTICE OF ADOPTION BY

Plaintiff, CENTURY 21, INC. OF

ANSWER TO MASTER

-against- COMPLAINT

80 LAFAYETTE ASSOCIATES LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant CENTURY 21, INC. (hereinafter Century

21), as and for its response to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off

Complaint) related to the Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, herein adopt

Century 21s Answer to Master Complaint, dated August 1, 2007, which was filed in the matter

of In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH).

WHEREFORE, Century 21 demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned action

as against it, together with its costs and disbursements.

Dated: New York, New York

September 10, 2007

HARRIS BEACH PLLC

Attorneys for Defendant

CENTURY 21, INC.

Is!

Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG 7062)

100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 687-0100

Case 1:07-cv-05561-AKH Document 11 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
TO:

Paul Napoli, Esq.

Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP

115 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10006

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, P.C.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Law Offices of Gregory J. Cannata

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Liaison Counselfor Plaintjff

James E. Tyrrell, Esq.

Joseph Hopkins, Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

One Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Thomas Egan, Esq.

Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLP

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006

Liaison Counselfor the Defendants

All Other Defense Counsel

Case 1:07-cv-05561-AKH Document 11 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATION AS TO SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on September 11, 2007, I caused the following

document to be electronically via the Courts ECF system:

1. Notice of Century 21s Adoption of Answer to Master Complaint.

The undersigned further certifies that on September 11, 2007, I caused the aforesaid

documents to be served via First Class Mail upon the following:

Paul Napoli, Esq. James E. Tyrrell, Esq.

Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP Joseph Hopkins, Esq.

115 Broadway, 12th Floor Patton Boggs LLP

New York, New York 10006 One Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, P.C. Thomas Egan, Esq.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLP

New York, New York 10279 One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Law Offices of Gregory J. Cannata Liaison Counselfor the Defendants

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Liaison Counselfor Plaint~ffs

Dated: September 11, 2007

/5/

Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG 7062)

Case 1:07-cv-05561-AKH Document 11 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### In re Vincent Shamont ROGERS, Petitioner.

No. 13-1355.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 28, 2013.

Vincent Shamont Rogers, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*208PER CURIAM:

Vincent Shamont Rogers petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motion for a new trial. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### In the Matter of Hawa Diallo, Respondent, v Mohammed Diallo, Appellant.

Submitted March 8, 2010;

decided May 4, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]).
# C_2019112EN.01000901.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/9

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 30 January 2019 — (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad, Apelativen sad — Sofia — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against AK (C-335/18), EP (C-336/18)

(Joined Cases C-335/18 and C-336/18) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Article 3(1) - Infringement of the obligation to declare - Article 4(2) - Measure to detain - Article 9(1) - Penalties provided for by national law - National legislation providing that, in addition to the imposition of a penalty of a term of imprisonment or a fine in the amount of one fifth of the amount of the undeclared sum, that sum is to be confiscated by the State - Proportionality))

(2019/C 112/12)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad, Apelativen sad — Sofia

Criminal proceedings against

AK (C-335/18), EP (C-336/18)

Operative part of the order

Articles 4(2) and 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of penalising an infringement of the obligation to declare provided for in Article 3 of that regulation, provides that, in addition to the imposition of a penalty of a term of imprisonment of up to five years or a fine in the amount of one fifth of the amount of the undeclared sum of cash, that undeclared sum is to be confiscated by the State.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
# C_2019206EN.01001601.xml

| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-288/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Classification of goods - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 85285100 and 85285940 - Flat screen monitors with liquid crystal display capable of displaying signals from automatic data processing systems - Agreement on trade in information technology products)

(2019/C 206/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Operative part

The Combined Nomenclature, which appears in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether flat panel monitors with screens of the liquid crystal display (LCD) technology, designed and manufactured for displaying both data from an automatic data-processing machine and also composite video signals from other sources, must be classified under subheading 85285100 of the Combined Nomenclature or the subheading 85285940 of that nomenclature, it is necessary, when examining all their objective characteristics and properties, to assess both the degree to which they are capable of performing several functions and the standard of performance that they achieve when performing those functions, in order to determine whether their principal function is to be used in an automatic data-processing system. In that context, particular importance should be given to the question whether they are designed to be viewed close up. Whether the person who uses the screen and the person who processes and/or enters data into an automatic data-processing machine are one and the same is not a relevant criterion for the purposes of that assessment.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018

---