alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, James R. Kupferschmid, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     August 10, 2005 By: /s/ JAMES R. KUPFERSCHMID         James R. Kupferschmid    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2008051EN.01002302.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit

(Case C-463/06) (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Liability insurance - Action brought by the injured party directly against the insurer - Rule of jurisdiction of the courts for the place where the plaintiff is domiciled)

(2008/C 51/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Jack Odenbreit

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 9(1)(b) and 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Legal proceedings against the civil liability insurance provider in the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled — Beneficiary of insurance

Operative part of the judgment

The reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer before the courts for the place in a Member State where that injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
Robert A. MUSSEN, Plaintiff, v. The STATE of North Carolina, and The District Attorney for the County of Wake, Ned Mangum, in his official capacity, Defendants.

No. COA15-749.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3678 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3678

 To redesignate the lock and dam located in Modoc, Illinois, commonly 
 known as the Kaskaskia Lock and Dam, as the ``Jerry F. Costello Lock 
                   and Dam'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2013

  Mr. Enyart (for himself, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Schock, Mr. Kinzinger of 
  Illinois, Mr. Rush, Mr. Roskam, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Gutierrez, Mrs. 
 Bustos, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. Quigley, Mr. 
 Lipinski, Mr. Foster, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Duckworth, 
Ms. Kelly of Illinois, and Mr. Hultgren) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To redesignate the lock and dam located in Modoc, Illinois, commonly 
 known as the Kaskaskia Lock and Dam, as the ``Jerry F. Costello Lock 
                   and Dam'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The lock and dam located in Modoc, Illinois, authorized by the Act 
entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and 
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for 
other purposes'', approved July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 927), and commonly 
known as the Kaskaskia Lock and Dam, is redesignated as the ``Jerry F. 
Costello Lock and Dam''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the lock and dam referred to in section 
1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jerry F. Costello Lock and 
Dam''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2023155EN.01002702.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 18 January 2023 — F S.A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

(Case C-18/23, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej)

(2023/C 155/34)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F S.A.

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Question referred

Must the provisions of Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), (1) and in particular Article 29(1) thereof, in conjunction with Articles 18, 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, be interpreted a precluding the laying down in national legislation of formal requirements, such as in the main proceedings, for taking advantage of exemptions from corporation tax by undertakings for collective investment whose registered office is in a Member State of the European Union other than the Republic of Poland, or in another State in the European Economic Area, that is to say from the requirement that they be managed by persons who have, for the pursuit of their activity, the authorisation of the competent financial market supervisory authorities of the State in which the registered office of those undertakings is situated?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 302, p. 32.

---
**Exhibit 32.02****Quintiles Transnational Corp. and Subsidiaries****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 Quintiles TransnationalCorp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, John D. Ratliff, Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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.     /s/ John D. Ratliff           John D. Ratliff *Executive Vice President and* *Chief Financial Officer*      March 7, 2005       Date     This certification is being furnished solely to accompany theReport pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933,as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,whether made before or after the date of this Report,irrespective of any general incorporation language contained insuch filing.     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other documents authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearin typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE of North Carolina v. Antonio Bernard BALDWIN and Shawn Ray Baldwin.

No. 270P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Mark Montgomery, Durham, for Antonio Baldwin.

Philip A. Tefler, Special Deputy Attorney General, Philip A. Lehman, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

C. Scott Holmes, Durham, for Shawn Baldwin.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of June 2008 by Defendant (Antonio Baldwin) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*340"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-6002, -6003 

ROBERT SOLOMON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE, 

 Respondent, 

and 

OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, 

 Respondent. 

Jeffrey H. Leib, of Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. 

William Wachter, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Compliance, 

of Washington, DC, argued for respondent Office of Compliance. With him on the brief 

was Peter A. Eveleth, General Counsel. 

Kelsi Brown Corkran, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent Office of the Architect 

of the Capitol. With her on the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney 

General, and Marleigh D. Dover, Attorney. 

Appealed from: Office of Compliance 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-6002, -6003 

ROBERT SOLOMON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE, 

Respondent, 

and 

OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, 

 Respondent. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance 

In CASE NO(S). 02-AC-62 (RP) and 04-AC-13 (RP). 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (RADER, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and DYK, 

Circuit Judge. 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: _September 9, 2008____ / s / Jan Horbaly

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Presidential Documents

54607 

Federal Register 

Vol. 70, No. 178 

Thursday, September 15, 2005 

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2005–35 of September 12, 2005 

Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authorities under the 

Trading with the Enemy Act 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Secretary of the Treasury 

Under section 101(b) of Public Law 95–223 (91 Stat. 1625; 50 U.S.C. App. 

5(b) note), and a previous determination on September 10, 2004 (69 Fed. 

Reg. 55497), the exercise of certain authorities under the Trading with the 

Enemy Act is scheduled to terminate on September 14, 2005. 

I hereby determine that the continuation for 1 year of the exercise of those 

authorities with respect to the applicable countries is in the national interest 

of the United States. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 101(b) of 

Public Law 95–223, I continue for 1 year, until September 14, 2006, the 

exercise of those authorities with respect to countries affected by: 

(1) the Foreign Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 500; 

(2) the Transaction Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 505; and 

(3) the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 515. 

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to publish this 

determination in the 

W 

Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 12, 2005. 

[FR Doc. 05–18495 

Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4811–33–P
NO. 12-21-00211-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MONTANA ROGERS, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Montana Rogers, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed

by Appellant and Appellant’s counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal.

Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered February 9, 2022.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 9, 2022

NO. 12-21-00211-CR

MONTANA ROGERS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1909-20)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
# C_2010179EN.01003202.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 May 2010 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-258/06) (1)

(Provisions applicable to public procurement - Contract awards not subject, or not subject in full, to the Public Procurement Directives - Interpretative communication of the Commission - Actionable measure - Measure intended to produce legal effects)

(2010/C 179/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and B. Schima, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented initially by: G. de Bergues, subsequently by G. de Bergues and J.-C. Gracia, and finally by G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents); Republic of Austria (represented by: M. Fruhmann, C. Pesendorfer and C. Mayr, Agents); Republic of Poland (represented initially by E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, subsequently by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, K. Rokicka and K. Zawisza, and finally by M. Szpunar, Agents); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented initially by: H. Sevenster, subsequently by C. Wissels and M. de Grave, and finally by C. Wissels, M. de Grave and Y. de Vries, Agents); European Parliament (represented by U. Rösslein and J. Rodrigues, Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: D. Tsagkaraki and M. Tassopoulou, Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: Z. Bryanston-Cross, and subsequently by L. Seeboruth, Agents)

Re:

Action for the annulment of the Commission Interpretative Communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives (OJ 2006 C 179, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament, the Hellenic Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament, the Hellenic Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,861,097
<SECURITIES>                                24,738,734
<RECEIVABLES>                                  478,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           9,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,204,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          496,957
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,707,502
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,204,459
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               872,656
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                788,475
<INCOME-TAX>                                   788,475
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            788,475
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   788,475
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Raymond MALLOY and Lisa Malloy, Plaintiffs v. E. Michael PRESLAR and Kathy N. Preslar, individually and d/b/a Preslar Farms, and Tyson Chicken, Inc.,1 Defendants.

No. COA14-1371.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2008301EN.01006104.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/61

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-26/05) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/104)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

1

---
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH 

NO. 2-08-102-CR

LUTHOR DALE SIMPSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY 

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

ON PERMANENT ABATEMENT OF APPEAL

----------

We have considered appellant’s "Motion To Permanently Abate Appeal.”

A copy of the certificate of death states that appellant died on May 24, 2008.

The death of an appellant during the pendency of an appeal deprives this

court of jurisdiction. Molitor v. State, 862 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. Crim. App.

1993). Under these circumstances, the appropriate disposition is the

permanent abatement of the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.1(a)(2). 
2

No decision of this court having been delivered prior to the receipt of this

motion, the court finds the motion to permanently abate the appeal should be

granted. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal is

permanently abated.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 26, 2008
Exhibit 99.16
 CONSENT OF J. LUPO
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 31, 2006 entitled Technical Report
NI 43-101F1 Los Filos Project, Mexico (the Los Filos Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Los Filos Report and the Los Filos
Mine, and the properties described therein.
  /s/ John LupoName:
    John Lupo, Ph.D., P.E.Title:
    Principal Engineer
STATE v. KIDD.

No. COA07-686.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 18, 2007

Certification Date January 7, 2008.

Appeal from Randolph (04CRS53989, 04CRS53990).

Decision without published opinion. No error.
HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC. v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES.

No. 301P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

The following order has been entered or the motion filed on the 25th of August 2015 by Respondent for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."