alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.0**

 

**WRITTEN CERTIFICATION of**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER and CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief FinancialOfficer of EFJ, Inc. (the “Company”), each hereby certifies that, to the bestof each of their knowledge:

 

the Company’s Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June30, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.

 

 
|   | /S/    | Michael E. Jalbert      |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Michael E. Jalbert      |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |   | August 05, 2004         |   |
|   |   |                    |   |
|   |   |                    |   |
|   | /S/    | Massoud Safavi          |   |
|   |   | Massoud Safavi          |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |   | August 05, 2004         |   |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.

 

----
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Michael F. Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer of Autobytel Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Autobytel Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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 we have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this 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 over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



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



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 31, 2005



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL F.
SCHMIDT                                                
|Michael F. Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Case 1 :06-cv-00131-T-DLM Document 4-1 Filed 04/07/2006 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Arthur D'Amario,

Petitioner

v . CA06-131T

United States of America,

Defendant

ORDER

All of the judges in the District of Rhode Island are

recused from presiding over this case . Accordingly, the case

shall be transferred to the District of New Hampshire .

The recusal of all of the judges of Lhis court gives rise to

an "emergency" with respect to the transferred case as that term

is used in 28 U .S .C . §636(f) . I therefore concur in th e

assignment of a magistrate judge from the District of New

tlampshire to perform the duties specified in 28 U .S .C . §636(a) -

(c) .

SO ORDERED .

By Order :

ENTER :

Chief Judge Ernest C . Torres

date : yVa\OV

Concurrinc order

AP'' 2 0

l concur that an emergency exists as specified in the above

and that .£or the duration of this case Magistrate Judg e

James R. Muirhead is assigned to perform such duties under 28

U .S .C . §636(a) - (c) as may be assigned to him/her by the

District Judge to whom this case is_pssigned .

Date : 4/20/06

Case 1:06-ds-00145-SM Document 3 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 1
#### TRAVELERS FIRE INS. CO. v. ACKEL.

No. 7020.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 27, 1947.

Gahagan & Pierson, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

Watson & Williams, of Natchitoches, for appellee. , *>*

KENNON, Judge.

Plaintiff, as carrier of collision insurance on defendant’s automobile, filed this suit for reimbursement of $1,059.87, paid to defendant on a claim submitted by him after his automobile had been damaged in an accident with a truck of the Loraine Transfer Company. The basis of the recovery action is that defendant, prior to collecting from plaintiff, his insurer, had received more than $12,000 for personal injuries and damage to his automobile, for which he had executed a full release to those responsible for the collision; and that he had thereby made impossible the execution to plaintiff (his own insurer) of a valid subrogation of his rights against the tort-feasors, which was a condition precedent to his collection of collision benefits under the policy.

From a judgment of the district court in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.

In the agreed statement of facts, it is admitted that the defendant received the settlement, as alleged by the plaintiff, and that, at the time he received the collision insurance money from plaintiff, he executed a subrogation in which he concealed the fact that he had previously settled his claim; and that he “carried through” the deceit by stating in that receipt and subrogation that no such settlement had been made and by agreeing to assist the plaintiff in the prosecution of its claim against those responsible for the accident.

The policy, which is in the record, provides that the insurer shall, in the event of loss, be subrogated to -all the insured’s rights of recovery against persons responsible for such loss and that the insured shall do nothing after loss to prejudice such rights. By signing the release, the defendant made himself powerless to execute a valid subrogation in favor of his insurer as required of him under the terms of the policy as a condition precedent to his right to recovery thereunder. This action of defendant in releasing those responsible for the damage to the automobile ended his *618rights to recover for the same loss under his policy with the plaintiff company. American Jurisprudence, Volume 29, page 1005, Section 1344.

Under the above circumstances, it is obvious that the payment to defendant by plaintiff was made as a direct result of misrepresentation and false statements, and the district court correctly gave judgment for its return.

After argument in this court, plaintiff filed an answer to the appeal, praying that damages for frivolous appeal be awarded. In order to have an answer to an appeal considered, it must be filed before argument. Article 890, Code of Practice; Ford v. Leonard Truck Lines, Inc., et al., La.App., 26 So.2d 309.

Judgment affirmed with' costs.
#### BAPTISTE v. MATEU.

No. 14266.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 24, 1933.

Phillip M. Guiffre, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Geo. C. Schoenberger, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This suit grows out of an accident which occurred at the intersection of Dauphine street and Esplanade avenue on August 13, 1931, when Revistes Baptiste, an aged negro, was run into by the automobile of defendant, driven by herself, causing a fracture of plaintiff’s right leg, disabling him for a period of about two months.

The evidence in the case presents the usual conflict, but, adopting the conclusions of the trial judge upon the facts involved, we find that Baptiste was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident, and with his head down and without looking in the direction of traffic, started across the lbwer side of Esplanade avenue from the neutral ground towards the curb; that he stopped, and defendant, believing that he intended to remain in a position of safety until she drove by, speeded up her car (she’had practically stopped at the crossing) and continued across the intersection, whereupon plaintiff started again, with the result that he was struck and knocked down by defendant’s car.

The fact that plaintiff was negligent is apparently conceded, for his counsel relies upon the doctrine of the last clear chance which would have no application if plaintiff was free from fault, and we might add, at this time, that the doctrine fails of application to this case, for the reason that the neg*732ligence of plaintiff continued up to the moment of the accident. Jordon v. Katz & Besthoff, 15 La. App. 500, 132 So. 380.

In Harrison v. Louisiana Western Railroad Co., 132 La. 762, 61 So. 782, 784, cited in the case of Jordon v. Katz & Besthoff, we find the following: “This so-called exception to the rule of contributory negligence (i. e., the doctrine of ‘last clear chance’) will not be extended to cases where the plaintiff’s own negligence extended up to and actually contributed to the injury. To warrant its application there must have been some new breach of duty on the part of the defendant subsequent to the plaintiff’s negligence.”

According to his own testimony, plaintiff started diagonally across the street with his head bowed and his back practically towards the approaching automobile of defendant, without looking in the direction of traffic, and did not see the defendant’s automobile until a moment before it struck him.

In the case of Neville v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 13 La. App. 76, 126 So. 720, we held that an old lady who attempted to cross the street without giving a second look in the direction of traffic was guilty of negligence barring her recovery. Here the plaintiff did not look at all.

Even though defendant may he said to have been negligent for one or all of the reasons urged by counsel, plaintiff cannot recover because of his continuing and contributory negligence.

Eor the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
*Release Date: June 30, 2005*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans
Percent
```

| Quarter | Other operating loans1 | Intermediate non-real-estate loans | Long-term real estate loans |
|---------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
||
| 6.5     | 6.4                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.3     | 6.2                    | 5.9                                |
| 6.2     | 6.1                    | 5.7                                |
| 6.1     | 6.1                    | 5.7                                |
| 6.3     | 6.3                    | 5.8                                |
| 6.4     | 6.3                    | 6.0                                |
| 6.6     | 6.5                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.8     | 6.8                    | 6.4                                |
| 7.1     | 7.1                    | 6.7                                |
||
| 7.0     | 6.9                    | 6.4                                |
| 6.9     | 6.8                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.2                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 6.7     | 6.6                    | 6.1                                |
| 7.3     | 6.8                    | 6.4                                |
| 7.3     | 7.1                    | 6.6                                |
| 7.5     | 7.3                    | 6.8                                |
||
| 5.8     | 6.0                    | 6.2                                |
| 5.2     | 5.3                    | 5.2                                |
| 5.1     | 5.3                    | 5.6                                |
| 4.6     | 4.9                    | 5.7                                |
| 5.8     | 6.2                    | 6.3                                |
| 6.0     | 6.2                    | 6.6                                |
| 6.2     | 6.6                    | 6.8                                |
| 6.7     | 7.0                    | 6.9                                |
| 7.1     | 7.3                    | 7.3                                |
```
1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses
and the care and feeding of livestock (including poultry). Return to table
   * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.
   n.a. Not available.
   Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at
commercial banks.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (4 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Covance Inc. (“Covance”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William E. Klitgaard, Corporate SeniorVice President and Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Covance.

 

 
| Date:  | May 5, 2008                      |   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/ William E.  Klitgaard             |   |
|   |  William E. Klitgaard            |
|   |  Corporate Senior Vice President |
|   |  and Chief Financial Officer     |
|   |  (Principal Financial Officer)   |

 

----
1The first five were requested by the plaintiff. Ms. Mann

is to appear to testify about her compliance/lack of compliance

with the court’s prior “no retaliation” order.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Edmondson

v. Civil No. 05-cv-445-JD

Steven Curry, et al.

O R D E R

 A hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction will be

held on February 23, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. Defendants are to be

served by forwarding a copy of the complaint and the motion by

mail to the New Hampshire Attorney General. 

Defendant is ordered to produce the following employees: 

1. Hal MacAlister;

2. Ed Redmond; 

3. Steve Nelson;

4. Bob McGrath; 

5. Ronald M. Converse; and

6. Judy Mann.1 

Witnesses will be sequestered until they have testified. 

Case 1:05-cv-00445-JD Document 9 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 13, 2006

cc: William Edmondson, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00445-JD Document 9 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

LEPKE JONES a/k/a RODNEY BURCH , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2532

[ April 21, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jeffrey Gillen , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 50

- 1989

- CF

- 009936

- AXXX

- MB and 50

- 1989

- CF

- 010442

- AXXX

- MB

. Rachel E. Reese of O'Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Ashley Mo ody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

. Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN , C IKLIN and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### MAULE INDUSTRIES, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Matthew S. BANDLER, Marsor Corp., Charles Robinson and Rose Robinson, His Wife, Sarah Azoff, Herbert H. Hutner and Julie Hutner, His Wife, Atlantic Consolidated Builders Supply Co., P. E. Barr, d/b/a Barr & Barr, Atlas Flooring, Inc., Construction Products Corp., Keene Roofing Company, Leroy Thomas Neimann and Annabelle E. Neimann, His Wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Aug. 10, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1954.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County ; J. Fritz Gordon, Judge.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

******************************

*

Rosemary A. Gilroy * Civil No. 07-cv-074-JD

Plaintiff *

v. *

*

Ameriquest Mortgage Company *

Defendant *

& *

AMC Mortgage Services, Inc. *

Defendant *

*

*

******************************

ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER

VACATING AND DISMISSING JUDGMENT

Having reviewed and considered the joint stipulation submitted by Plaintiff, 

Rosemary A. Gilroy and Defendants, Ameriquest Mortgage Company and AMC 

Mortgage Services, Inc., said Stipulation is approved and Order of this court dated 

June 17, 2009 is hereby vacated and dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

_____________________________ ___________________________________

Date: By:________________________________

United States District Judge

Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 174-2 Filed 10/06/2009 Page 1 of 1 Case 1:07-cv-00074-JD Document 175 Filed 10/09/09 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit3.3**

 
|        |   | State of  Delaware             |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   | Secretary of  State            |
|   |   | Division of  Corporations      |
|   |   | Delivered 03:33  PM 05/15/2007 |
|   |   | FILED 03:29 PM  05/15/2007     |
|   |   | SRV 070567485 -  2648992 FILE  |

 

CERTIFICATE OFAMENDMENT

OF

AMENDED ANDRESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

deCODE genetics,Inc.

Pursuant toSection 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the undersignedcorporation (the “Corporation”) executes this Certificate of Amendment of itsAmended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.

1.             Section 4.1 of theAmended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is amended to read in itsentirety as follows:

“4.1 Authorized Shares. This Corporation is authorizedto issue two classes of stock to be designated, respectively, “Common Stock” and“Preferred Stock.” The total number of shares which the Corporation isauthorized to issue is One Hundred and Fifty-Six Million, Seven Hundred andSixteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Six (156,716,666), One Hundred Million(150,000,000) shares of which will be Common Stock (the “Common Stock”) and SixMillion, Seven Hundred and Sixteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Six(6,716,666) shares of which will be Preferred Stock (the “Preferred Stock”).The Preferred Stock will have a par value of one-tenth of one cent ($0.001) pershare, and the Common Stock will have a par value of one-tenth of one cent ($0.001)for share.”

2.             The foregoingamendment has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions Section242(b) of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

IN WITNESSWHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment of itsAmended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation to be duly executed in itscorporate name on this 11 day of May, 2007.
|   | deCODE genetics, Inc. |
|--------|-----------------------|
|   |                  |
|   | By:                   |  /s/ Kari Stefansson |   |
|   |                  | Kari Stefansson, President |

 

----
---

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable 
(CSV) format contain all available historical data.

|Summary Charts                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|PDF (11 KB)                                                           
|                                                                      
|
|                                                                      
|A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                             
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                          
|A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                             
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.4. Average Maturity of Non-real-estate Bank Loans                   
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.5. Average Effective Interest Rate on Non-real-estate Bank          
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans      
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.8. All Banks, by Size of Loan                                       
|ASCII (7 KB)                                                          
|A.9. Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                          
|A.10. Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders                                
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                          
|A.11. All Banks, by Risk Rating                                       
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                          
|A.12. Large Farm Lenders                                              
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.13. Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders                                
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          
|A.14. Regional Disaggregation of Survey Results                       
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                          

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: June 30, 2004