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

                          ASCEND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

                                        
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-82550, 33-94886, 333-00442, 333-03686, 333-10879, 333-
15697, 333-30823, 333-54029, 333-55675, 333-65467, 333-65917) and on Form S-3
(File Nos. 333-13377, 333-11091, 333-21751 and 333-32781) of Ascend
Communications, Inc. of our report dated January 22, 1997, except for note M as
to which the date is March 30, 1997, on our audit of the consolidated financial
statements and our report dated January 22, 1997 on our audit of the
consolidated financial statement schedule of Cascade Communications Corp. for
the year ended December 31, 1996, which reports are included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Ascend Communications, Inc.



Boston, Massachusetts                                PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
March 26, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             116,311
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               4,218
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                         0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         41,420
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             179,284
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               176,684
<LOANS>                                            295,213
<ALLOWANCE>                                          1,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     663,092
<DEPOSITS>                                         476,419
<SHORT-TERM>                                         5,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                 11,617
<LONG-TERM>                                         98,359
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               529
<OTHER-SE>                                          71,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                     663,092
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                     17,019
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    9,835
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                       930
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                    27,784
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   9,892
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14,429
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                               13,355
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                          210
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                     223
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                     10,492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      3,943
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           3,943
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,287
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .54
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        3.37
<LOANS-NON>                                              0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         1,760
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     1,484
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                            8
<RECOVERIES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    1,686
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 1,686
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              1,686



</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Dwayne ROBINSON

No. 32P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Hannah H. Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Robinson, Dwayne.

Hilda Burnett-Baker, Assistant Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Hilda Burnett-Baker, Special Deputy Attorney General.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of January 2017 by Defendant 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:

*495"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Thomas E. Mangold, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Affirmative InsuranceHoldings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 15, 2004         /s/ Thomas E. Mangold     Thomas E. Mangold   President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Edward G. BRISSETTE, Bankrupt, Gene Paul Master, Bankrupt, and Michael Anthony Simon, Bankrupt.

No. 75-3288.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 25, 1977.

Before HUFSTEDLER, GOODWIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

We had no occasion to and we did not reach the question of the effect of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1671*et seq.*(1971)) in states with wage earner exemption schemes different from California’s, nor do we express any opinion upon the preemptive effect, if any, of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, on such other state laws which Section 6 of the Bankruptcy Act adopts.

The petitions for rehearing are denied.
----

Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1 September 2005 to 30 September 2005

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC (2))

(2005/C 268/03)

Issuing, maintenance or modification of a national marketing authorisation

----

(1)OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

(2)OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 1.

----

ANNEX I

LIST OF THE NAMES, PHARMACEUTICAL FORM, STRENGTHS OF THE MEDICINAL PRODUCTS, ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION, APPLICANT, MARKETING AUTHORISATION HOLDERS IN THE MEMBER STATES

----

ANNEX II

LIST OF THE NAMES, PHARMACEUTICAL FORM, STRENGTHS OF THE MEDICINAL PRODUCTS, ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION, APPLICANT, MARKETING AUTHORISATION HOLDERS IN THE MEMBER STATES

----
# Official Journal C 88A/24 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 88A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6524 February 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 88A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6524 February 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 88 A/01 | Notice amending Innovative Health Initiative Joint Undertaking (IHI JU) – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Executive Director of the Innovative Health Initiative Joint Undertaking (IHI JU) (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) – COM/2022/20075 ( OJ C 48 A, 31.1.2022 ) | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2022/C 88 A/01

Notice amending Innovative Health Initiative Joint Undertaking (IHI JU) – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Executive Director of the Innovative Health Initiative Joint Undertaking (IHI JU) (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) – COM/2022/20075 ( OJ C 48 A, 31.1.2022 )

( OJ C 48 A, 31.1.2022 )

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

| 24.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 88/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 88/1

---

Notice amending Innovative Health Initiative Joint Undertaking (IHI JU) – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Executive Director of the Innovative Health Initiative Joint Undertaking (IHI JU) (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) – COM/2022/20075

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 48 A of 31 January 2022
  )

(2022/C 88 A/01)

On page 5, ‘Closing date’, first paragraph:

| for: | ‘The closing date for registration is 28 February 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’, |
| --- | --- |

for:

‘The closing date for registration is 28 February 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’,

| read: | ‘The closing date for registration is 14 March 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’. |
| --- | --- |

read:

read:

‘The closing date for registration is 14 March 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’.

---
DENY; and Opinion Filed August 22, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00919-CV

IN RE STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND 

TERECINA SHAHAN, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-01423-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Before the Court is relators’ August 5, 2019 petition for writ of mandamus in which relators 

contend the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion to abate extra-contractual 

claims in the underlying underinsured motorist lawsuit. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relators

must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relators have no 

adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). After reviewing the petition and the mandamus record, we conclude relators have not 

shown they are entitled to the relief requested.
–2–

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) 

(the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the 

relief sought).

190919F.P05

/Ken Molberg/

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
---

|                                                                                | **Clyvia**                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------
|**CLYVIA TECHNOLOGY GMBH**                                                     
|                                                                                |                           
|                                                                                |                           
|                                                                                | Clyvia Technology GmbH    
|Clyvia Technology GmbH Friedrich-List-Allee 10 D-41844
      Wegberg-Wildenrath |                           
|                                                                                | Friedrich-List-Allee 10   
|                                                                                | D-41844 Wegberg-Wildenrath
|                                                                                | Tel.: +49 2432 893626     
|                                                                                | Fax: +49 2432 893629      
|                                                                                | Email: info@clyvia-tec.com
|                                                                                | www.clyvia-tec.com        

Wegberg, November 23rd, 2005



Dr. Manfred Sappok Geldernerstr. 94 47918 St. Toenis



Employment Contract

Dear Dr. Sappok,

We are pleased to advise you that your salary will be increased
to € 5,000.000 effective January 1st, 2006.

Yours truly,

Clyvia Technology GmbH

Dieter Wagels [Signature]

Managing Director:Dr. Manfred SappokDieter Wagels

Local district court
ErkelenzHRB 11047

Tax and revenue office
ErkelenzTax no.: 208/5702/0689

Banking information:Sparkasse Krefeld (Branch code 320 500 00)

---
Exhibit 32(b)

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 of NewMarket Corporation (the
Company) for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Fiorenza, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|    |  |                             
|--- |  | ----------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ D. A. Fiorenza          
|    |  | David A. Fiorenza           
|    |  | Vice President and Treasurer
|    |  | July 30, 2007
In the MATTER OF COLVARD, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization And Sterilization Compensation Program, Claimant-Appellant.

No. COA15-923-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Donna Lehmann, asTreasurer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C. (the “Company”),certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(B)  the information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: August 14,2009

 

 
|   | /S/ Donna Lehmann                                       |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Donna Lehmann                                           |
|   | Treasurer  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Francisco MARTINEZ, Defendant.

No. COA17-505

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             McLEODUSA INCORPORATED

                     COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                 (AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Year  ended December 31,
                                                                          2000       1999       1998
                                                                       -------    -------    -------
<S>                                                                   <C>        <C>        <C>
Computation of weighted average number of
 common shares outstanding:
Common shares, Class A, outstanding at the
 beginning of the period (A)........................................     472.8      382.2      370.8

Weighted average number of shares issued
 during the period (A)..............................................      85.6       60.9        6.0
                                                                       -------    -------    -------
Weighted average number of common shares............................     558.4      443.1      376.8
                                                                       =======    =======    =======

Net loss before extraordinary charge................................   $(452.9)   $(220.3)   $(124.9)
Extraordinary charge for early retirement of debt...................     (24.4)       ---        ---
                                                                       -------    -------    -------
Net loss............................................................    (477.3)    (220.3)    (124.9)
Preferred stock dividend............................................     (54.4)     (17.7)       ---
                                                                       -------    -------    -------
Net loss applicable to common shares................................   $(531.7)   $(238.0)   $(124.9)
                                                                       =======    =======    =======
Loss per common share:
Loss before extraordinary charge....................................   $ (0.91)   $ (0.54)   $ (0.33)
Extraordinary charge................................................     (0.04)       ---        ---
                                                                       -------    -------    -------
Loss per common share...............................................   $ (0.95)   $ (0.54)   $ (0.33)
                                                                       =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>

(A) All shares have been adjusted to give effect to the stock splits effected
    in the form of a stock dividend as discussed in Note 1 of the consolidated
    financial statements.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Kyle GRAY, Defendant, Argonaut Insurance Company, Movant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barbara Ann GASTON, Defendant, Argonaut Insurance Company, Movant-Appellant.

Nos. 77-2299 and 77-2300

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 2, 1978.

Janet Reno, Miami, Fla., for movant-appellant in both cases.

J. V. Eskenazi, U. S. Atty., Mervyn L. Ames, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee in both cases.

Before RONEY, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, the appellant Argonaut Insurance Company asserts that justice did not require the enforcement of two $100,000 appearance bond forfeitures entered against it in the court below and that these bonds should have been set aside under Fed.R.Crim.P. 46(e)(2). We decline to address this question, and consider instead whether the lower court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the forfeitures. After careful review of the testimony, much of it taken confidentially *in camera,*we conclude that the lower court did not abuse its discretion, and affirm.

This Court has consistently held that the standard of review for a district court’s refusal to remit part or all of a bond forfeiture is whether the district court abused its discretion. *United States v. Shelton,*444 F.2d 522, 523 (5th Cir. 1971); *Brown v. United States,*410 F.2d 212, 218 (5th Cir. 1969). We are convinced that a similar standard should be applied when a district court refuses to set aside a bond forfeiture. *See United States v. Foster,*417 F.2d 1254, 1256 (7th Cir. 1969). While reasonable minds could have concluded, contrary to the decision of the court below, that justice did not here require a bond forfeiture, we are not persuaded that the lower court abused its discretion in reaching the decision that it did.

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3806 

To authorize payment of funds in accordance with the agreement entered 

into by the Tennessee Valley Authority, the State of North Carolina, 

Swain County, North Carolina, and the United States Department of 

the Interior. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 23, 2013 

Mr. MEADOWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize payment of funds in accordance with the agreement entered into by the Tennessee Valley Authority, 

the State of North Carolina, Swain County, North Carolina, and the United States Department of the Interior. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Great Smoky Moun5 tains National Park Agreement Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION. 

7 From funds previously appropriated to the National 

8 Park Service in the construction account for that agency 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3806 IH

1 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 

2 112–74), the National Park Service shall expend 

3 $4,000,000 for payment consistent with the Memorandum 

4 of Agreement entered into by the Tennessee Valley Au5 thority, the State of North Carolina, Swain County, North 

6 Carolina, and the United States Department of the Inte7 rior, dated February, 2010, that supersedes the agreement 

8 of July 30, 1943 (relating to the construction of the North 

9 Shore Road from the eastern boundary of Great Smoky 

10 Mountains National Park). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS