alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Boyd Bros. Transportation Inc.:


We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Boyd Bros.
Transportation Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of Boyd Bros. Transportation Inc. and
subsidiary as of December 31, 2000, and the results of their operations and
their cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999 in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


Deloitte & Touche LLP

Birmingham, Alabama
February 9, 2001 (March 28, 2001 as to the
  waiver letters described in Note 4)
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4076 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To address shortages and interruptions in the availability 

of propane and other home heating fuels in the United 

States, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4076 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Home Heating Emer3 gency Assistance Through Transportation Act of 2014’’ 

4 or the ‘‘HHEATT Act of 2014’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROPANE AND HOME HEATING FUEL EMERGENCY 

6 TRANSPORTATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, a covered emergency exemption issued by the 

9 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration shall remain 

10 in effect until May 31, 2014, unless the Secretary of 

11 Transportation, after consultation with the Governors of 

12 affected States, determines that the emergency for which 

13 the exemption was provided ends before that date. 

14 (b) COVERED EMERGENCY EXEMPTION DEFINED.— 

15 In this section, the term ‘‘covered emergency exemption’’ 

16 means an exemption issued under section 390.23 of title 

17 49, Code of Federal Regulations, or extended under sec18 tion 390.25 of such title that— 

19 (1) was issued or extended during the period 

20 beginning on February 5, 2014, and ending on the 

21 date of enactment of this Act; and 

22 (2) provided regulatory relief for commercial 

23 motor vehicle operations providing direct assistance 

24 supporting the delivery of propane and home heating 

25 fuels. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4076 RDS 

1 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in sub2 section (a) may be construed to prohibit the Federal 

3 Motor Carrier Safety Administration from issuing or ex4 tending a covered emergency exemption beyond May 31, 

5 2014, under other Federal law. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 4, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

NDIDI OSUJI,

Appellant,

v.

BILAL TOWING, INC. AND 

TOO LATE TOWING & RECOVERY,

Appellees.

No. 2D23-649

December 15, 2023

Appeal from the County Court for Hillsborough County; James S. 

Giardina, Judge.

Ndido Osuji, pro se.

N. Brook Nutter of The Law Office of N. Brook Nutter, P.A., Tampa, for 

Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
**Exhibit 31.3**
I, Mark Smith, Chairman of Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Town Sports International Holdings,Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information includedin this quarterly report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures 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 quarterly report isbeing prepared;
          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and presented inthis 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; and
          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting;
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting;
Date: May 3, 2005     By: /s/ Mark Smith        Mark Smith *Chairman*
STATE of North Carolina v. William Chavis DUNLAP, Jr.

No. COA16-1063

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 20, 2017

VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
#### Celia DeMatteo et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Dominick Castaldo, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Westchester County,

March 19, 1943.

*Wallace & Wallace*for defendant.

*O’Neill S Danziger*for plaintiffs.

Witschief, J.

Motion on behalf of defendant to have this case placed on the Military Suspense Calendar granted.* The allegation that the defendant is insured is obviously a surmise, but, assuming it to be true, the conditions of the insurance are unknown. The insurer may disavow liability or fail to satisfy the judgment, so that the defendant might be subjected to body execution. The defendant is reported by the Navy to be missing following action, so that it is not known whether he is dead or living.

*

 See Rules of Appellate Division, Second Department, Special Rule Two (adopted May 26, 1941).— [Rep.
QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED, et al. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE

315PA15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

James E. Scarbrough, Attorney at Law, James R. DeMay, Attorney at Law, Concord, John F. Scarborough, Attorney at Law, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

Susan K. Burkhart, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Town of Carthage

Stephen D. Feldman, Attorney at Law, Paul M. Cox, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Steven A. Scoggan, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, F. Paul Calamita, III, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Water Quality Association and Seven Municipalities

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 14th of February 2017 by NC Water Quality Association and Seven Municipalities for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
# C_2008092EN.01002901.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2008 — CPEM v Commission

(Case T-444/07 R)

(Interim measures - Application for stay of execution - Submission of the application - Inadmissibility - Association - Financial loss - Lack of urgency)

(2008/C 92/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) (Marseilles, France) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for stay of execution of debit note No 3240912189 of 17 December 2007 relating to Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 December 2007 cancelling the assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF) granted to CPEM by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1595
NANCY LEE BOGART, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEICO INSURANCE, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1635-A) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy Lee Bogart, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Andrew Geschickter, Staff Counsel, GEICO, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissingher complaint without prejudice. A district court's dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers' Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice could be final if "no amendment [to the complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiff's case." Id. at 1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine "whether the plaintiff could save her action by merely amending the complaint." Id. at 1066-67. Because Appellant could have amended her complaint to prevent dismissal, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P.(the “Registrant”), certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P. 

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this quarterly 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant is made known to us particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

(c)presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols; and 

 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I haveindicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date or our most recent evaluation, including anycorrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Date: August 15, 2005
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10231

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL WAYNE GROVES, II

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:99-CR-95-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Wayne

Groves, II, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Groves has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Owen Bernice SMITH, III, Defendant.

No. COA17-93

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

VACATED IN PART, NO ERROR IN PART.
STATE v. Tae Kwon HAMMONDS

389A15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 13, 2016

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hammonds, Tae Kwon.

Joseph E. Elder, Assistant Attorney General, Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

John R. Rittelmeyer, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Disability Rights North Carolina, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of October 2016 by Defendant for Revision of Briefing Deadlines:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of October 2016."
STATE v. Thomas STOUT, Jr.

83P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Thomas (Jr.) Stout, for Stout, Thomas (Jr.).

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of March 2017 by Defendant for Petition for Writ of Prohibition:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2008 – Sanofi‐Aventis v OHIM – GD Searle (ATURION)**

**(Case T-146/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ATURION – Earlier national mark URION – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 71-73)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006 (Case R 227/2005‐1) concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi-Aventis SA and GD Searle LLC. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | GD Searle LLC |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark ATURION for goods in Class 5 – Application No 1662311 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Sanofi-Aventis SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National word mark URION for goods in Class 5 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejection of the opposition |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Sanofi-Aventis SA to pay the costs. |
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark R. Harris, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of 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, as amended; and 

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

 

| Date: May 4, 2017 | By:    | /S/ MARK R. HARRIS

     |
|-------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|              |   | Mark R. Harris                |
|              |   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|              |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Steven Purcell, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alternative Resources Corporation;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



|Date: March 30, 2004 |  | /s/STEVE PURCELLSteven Purcell Chief Financial
Officer
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

October 17, 2008

Mr. Craig T. Enoch

Winstead PC

401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100

Austin, TX 78701

Ms. Julia F. Pendery

Attorney at Law

3030 LBJ Freeway, Ste 1630, LB 50

Dallas, TX 75234

RE:Case Number:  04-0641

Court of Appeals Number:  05-03-00468-CV

Trial Court Number:  219-00595-00

Style:NICK DIGIUSEPPE D/B/A SOUTHBROOK DEVELOPMENT CO. AND FRISCO MASTER PLAN

v.

ROGER LAWLER

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  (Justice Medina not sitting)

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 04-0641Page 1**
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Fred M. Powell, Chief Financial Officer of BMP SUNSTONE Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, based on my
knowledge:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as am ended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/ FRED M. POWELL                                 
|Fred M. Powell Chief
Financial Officer May 10, 2010