alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.02



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 periodic report of Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Stephen R. Saul, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at
the dates and for the periods indicated.



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version 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.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                     |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen R. Saul                  
|                     |  |  |  | Stephen R. Saul                      
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer              
|                     |  |  |  | Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Trenton Garrett v. Texas 18th U.S. District Representative Sheila 

Jackson Lee

Appellate case number: 01-21-00498-CV

Trial court case number: 1173525

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

Appellant Trenton Garrett prematurely filed a brief on September 23, 2021, before the 

reporter’s record was filed. The brief does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d) (statement of the case “should be supported by record 

references”), (g) (statement of facts “must be supported by record references”), (i) (argument 

must contain “appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”).

Accordingly, the brief is stricken. Appellant must file a corrected brief in compliance 

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. The deadline for filing the corrected brief is thirty 

days from the date the reporter’s record is filed.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss__________

Acting individually 

Date: September 28, 2021
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 863/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 863/2013 of 5 September 2013 concerning the classification of certain goods in            the Combined Nomenclature (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 863/2013                     

# of 5 September 2013

# concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/524 of 8 April 2020 repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 863/2013 concerning                                 the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2013 of 15 July 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 673/2013                     

# of 15 July 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 July 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1436
In Re: EDWARD G. SHLIKAS, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-1188-1) Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward G. Shlikas, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Edward G. Shlikas filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to allow him to file a responsive brief in excess of twenty pages and for a writ of prohibition ordering the district judge and magistrate judge to disqualify themselves from all further proceedings in his case. We deny the petition.A writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition are drastic remedies to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) (writ of mandamus); In re Vargas , 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983) (writ of prohibition). Relief under these writs is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and they may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The party seeking relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Shlikas has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and3 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
REFYL, INC. v. AMERIGAS PROPANE.

No. 20P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 18, 2007.

Julia F. Youngman, Raleigh, for AmeriGas Propane.

Walter E. Brock, Jr., David M. Duke, Raleigh, for Refyl, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of January 2007 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 18th day of January 2007."
Exhibit 15

                   AWARENESS LETTER OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


MidAmerican Energy Company
Des Moines, Iowa

We have made a review, in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited consolidated interim
financial  information of MidAmerican  Energy Company and  subsidiaries  for the
three-month  and  nine-month  periods  ended  September  30,  2001 and 2000,  as
indicated  in our report dated  October 26, 2001;  because we did not perform an
audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware  that our  report  referred  to above,  which is  included  in your
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September  30,  2001,  is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-59760 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the  Securities  Act of  1933,  is not  considered  a part  of the  Registration
Statement  prepared  or  certified  by an  accountant  or a report  prepared  or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
November 9, 2001
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-70369) of Prime Group Realty Trust and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-65147) pertaining to the Prime Group
Realty Trust Share Incentive Plan of our report dated March 7, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Prime Group Realty Trust
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

         Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Prime
Group Realty Trust listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

                                                            /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 20, 2000
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL BEALS ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 16-729 (JEB)

MARK J. LANGER, et al.,

 Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Ellis filed a pro se action in this courthouse against 

the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and others, claiming that the IRS falsifies the 

tax records of citizens who do not file tax returns. See Ellis v. Commissioner, No. 14-471, ECF 

No. 1. In a thorough Opinion, Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed the case on the grounds 

that Ellis’s claims were barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and his lack of standing. See 67 F. 

Supp. 3d 325 (D.D.C. 2014). After his Rule 59 motion was denied, see ECF No. 33 (Dec. 3, 

2014), he appealed, and the case was assigned No. 15-5035. See Minute Entry of Feb. 11, 2015. 

The Court of Appeals issued a brief per curiam judgment on November 20, 2015, affirming 

Judge Jackson’s decision. See ECF No. 38. The mandate issued on March 22, 2016. See ECF 

No. 39.

Still unhappy with the outcome of that suit and wasting little time, Plaintiff has filed the 

instant case, which is nothing more than a challenge to the Court of Appeals’ decision. He 

specifically states that “[t]his cause is designed to ensure the validity, meaning and import of the 

‘Order’ dismissing Court of Appeals cause 15-5035,” although he misleadingly claims it is “not . 
2

. . an ‘appeal’ or attempt to amend it.” Compl. at 1. He asserts that he “has standing in this case 

to seek mere review (not amendment, nor reversal) of the putative ‘Order’ to determine six issues 

. . . .” Id. at 2. The issues all deal with the validity of the Court of Appeals’ judgment. See id. at 

2-3. 

This Court has an independent obligation to ensure that it does, in fact, have subjectmatter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s suit. See NetworkIP, LLC v. F.C.C., 548 F.3d 116, 120 

(D.C. Cir. 2008) (“It is axiomatic that subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and that 

courts may raise the issue sua sponte.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Although this Court might wish to have the power to overturn rulings by the Court of Appeals 

(particularly those reversing its decisions), that is not the way our judicial system works. If Ellis 

is displeased by an appellate decision, he must seek rehearing, rehearing en banc, or Supreme 

Court review. This Court has no jurisdiction to offer him any relief.

The Court, accordingly, will an issue an Order dismissing the case without prejudice.

 /s/ James E. Boasberg 

 JAMES E. BOASBERG

 United States District Judge

Date: April 21, 2016
Exhibit 10.15

Non-Employee Director Compensation

Eligibility

Directors who are not employees of the Company or any of its subsidiaries and who do not have a compensatory agreement providing for service as a director of
the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

Annual Retainer Schedule (paid quarterly in advance on
January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1)



|                                                                                                |  |   |       
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | ------
|Retainer for each Director                                                                      |  | $ | 23,000
|Additional retainer for Chair of Compensation Committee and Nominating and Governance Committee |  | $ | 2,500 
|Additional retainer for Chair of the Audit Committee                                            |  | $ | 3,500 

Expenses

Company pays directors reasonable travel, lodging, meals and other expenses connected with their Board service.

Director Deferred Compensation

Independent
outside directors are eligible to voluntarily defer 50% or 100% of their retainer fees and to participate in the Director Stock Plan:



| |  |  | First election to participate must be made within 30 days of initial eligibility for the plan. Subsequent elections must be made before the end of the
year in which services are to be performed. Once made, elections are irrevocable for such year. Election in each year to be Alternative 1, 2 or 3:
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative 1:



| |  |  | Retainer fees are used to purchase company stock at market price at time that retainer fee is payable. Stock is subject to restriction on transfer
until separation from service as a director.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative 2:



| |  |  | Retainer fees are credited towards stock units equivalent to value of company common stock at market price at time that retainer fee is payable. Stock
units are exchanged for equivalent shares of stock six months after separation from service as a director.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative 3:



| |  |  | Retainer fees are payable in cash but deferred until separation from service as a director.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# L_2013190EN.01009001.xml

| 11.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 190/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 190/90

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 9 July 2013

appointing a Dutch member and a Dutch alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2013/371/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Dutch Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Annemieke TRAAG. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Annemieke TRAAG.

| (3) | An alternate member’s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Rogier van der SANDE as member of the Committee of the Regions, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

An alternate member’s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Rogier van der SANDE as member of the Committee of the Regions,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| (a) | as member:






  — | Mr Rogier van der SANDE, member of the Executive Council of the Province of Zuid-Holland; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

as member:

—

Mr Rogier van der SANDE, member of the Executive Council of the Province of Zuid-Holland;

and

| (b) | as alternate member:






  — | Ms Annemieke TRAAG, member of the Executive Council of the Province of Gelderland. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

as alternate member:

—

Ms Annemieke TRAAG, member of the Executive Council of the Province of Gelderland.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 9 July 2013.

For the Council

The President

R. ŠADŽIUS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS v. Robert W. SMITH, Supt., and Theodis Beck, Secretary of N.C. Dept. of Correction.

No. 290P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 22, 2007.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Pro Se.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for NC Dept. of Correction.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Plaintiff on the 20th day of June 2007 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Cabarrus County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd day of June 2007."
# Council Decision 2014/384/CFSPShow full title

Council Decision 2014/384/CFSP of 23 June 2014 amending Decision 2011/426/CFSP appointing the European Union Special Representative            in Bosnia and Herzegovina         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision 2014/384/CFSP                     

# of 23 June 2014

# amending Decision 2011/426/CFSP appointing the European Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

(1)On 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/426/CFSP(1) appointing Mr Peter SØRENSEN as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The EUSR's mandate                              is to expire on 30 June 2015.

(2)Decision 2011/426/CFSP, as last amended by Decision 2013/351/CFSP(2), provided the EUSR with the financial reference amounts covering the period from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2014. A new                              financial reference amount for the period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 should be established.

(3)The EUSR will implement the mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of                              the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty.

(4)Decision 2011/426/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Decision 2011/426/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

In Article 5(1), the following subparagraph is added:

‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 July                                 2014 to 30 June 2015 shall be EUR 5 250 000.’.                           

In Article 13, the following subparagraph is added:

‘The final comprehensive mandate implementation report shall be submitted before March 2015.’.                           

## Article 2U.K.Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

It shall apply from 1 July 2014.

Done at Luxembourg, 23 June 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

C. Ashton                            

1

OJ L 188, 19.7.2011, p. 30.                           

2

OJ L 185, 4.7.2013, p. 7.