alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In Re SULLIVAN

(265 N. W. 601.)

(File No. 7618.

Opinion filed March 17, 1936.)

*Walter Cortmfay,*Atty. Gen., for the State.

*George I. Danforth,*of Sioux Falls, for Accused.

PER CURIAM.

E. E. Sullivan of Sioux Falls, S. D., was by an order entered the 8th day of February, 1934, disbarred from the practice of law in this state, and1 the license of said Sullivart to practice law was in all things canceled and revoked, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys. Personal service of the ordter of disbarment was admitted by the said Sullivan on the 5th day of *166March, 1934. On November 13, 1935, an appeal was filed in this court in the case of State of South Dakota v. J. A. Johnson, 64 S. D. 162, 265 N. W. 599. It was disclosed by the record on appeal in that case that the above-named E. E. Sullivan had appeared as an attorney for the defendant, J. A. Johnson, in the circuit court of Aurora county in the trial in the case, which commenced on the 6th day of September, 1934. See State v. Johnson 64 S. D. 162, 265 N. W. 599. On February 20, 1936, an order was served on the said E. E. Sullivan, directing him to appear before this court at a time fixed to show cause why he should not -be held in contempt of court for a violation of the order of disbarment referred to above. At the time fixed Mr. Sullivan did appear with counsel, and did admit the violation of the said order in that he appeared as an attorney in -tlie trial of the case of State of South Dakota v. Johnson, as disclosed by the record! in that case.

The violation of the order of disbarment stands admitted. This court has no recourse except to punish for contempt. We are of the opinion that the violation of the order was a willful violation and without any justifiable excuse. It is our judgment that the above-named E. E. Sullivan should, be committed to the county jail of Minnehaha county, S. D., for a period of thirty days for the willful violation of the order of disbarment. Formal judgment will be entered accordingly.

All the Judges concur.
#### Northern Insurance Company of New York, Appellant, v. Max Grebin, Doing Business as S. N. Garden Garage, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
§ 19.355 Labels describing the spirits. ( a ) Labels affixed to containers must accurately describe the spirits in the tanks from which the containers are filled. The proprietor's records must enable TTB officers to readily determine which label was used on any filled container.
( b ) Additional information regarding labeling requirements is found in subpart T of this part and part 5 of this chapter.
(26 U.S.C. 5201)
###### Editorial Note on Part 26

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear by T.D. ATF-451, 66 FR 21668, 21669, May 1, 2001.

#### § 26.102 Application and permit, TTB Form 5100.21.

When beer of Puerto Rican manufacture is to be withdrawn for shipment to the United States, or for use in making an article for shipment to the United States, application for permit to compute the tax on, and to withdraw, the beer shall be made by the brewer on TTB Form 5100.21, in quintuplicate. If the withdrawal is to be made in hogsheads, barrels, or kegs, the brewer shall enter the total number of each size, according to capacity, of containers which it is desired to withdraw. If the withdrawal is to be made in bottles, the brewer shall enter the number of cases, size of bottles, number of bottles per case, the total contents thereof in gallons (liquid measure), and the equivalent thereof in barrels and fractions of barrels of 31 gallons each. The brewer shall forward all copies of the TTB Form 5100.21 to the Secretary. If the application is properly prepared and is otherwise in order, the Secretary or his delegate shall execute the permit, retain one copy, and return the original and three copies to the brewer.

[T.D. 6695, 28 FR 12934, Dec. 5, 1963. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-251, 52 FR 19338, May 22, 1987; T.D. TTB-146, 82 FR 1132, Jan. 4, 2017]
### Part B—Enhancing Teacher Education

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part B, consisting of sections 1041 to 1044, related to preparing tomorrow's teachers to use technology, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 110–315, title II, §201(3), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3154.
Date: May 10, 2013 Location: Washington DC

EPA attendees: Chris Grundler, 

Karl Simon, Paul Machiele, Paul 

Argyropoulos

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation: Meeting at Exxon 

with Darren Woods, Chris Erickson, John Glennon, 

Elisabeth Vrahopoulou, Nick Jones, Jeanne Mitchell, Al 

Mannato

Topics/issues/agenda:

A broad meeting focused on Exxon’s Energy Outlook and the RFS Rules, but also touching on 

Tier 3, and Antibacksliding Study
### §494. Repealed. Aug. 2, 1956, ch. 887, §4(a)(27), 70 Stat. 948

Section, act June 22, 1874, ch. 391, §13, 18 Stat. 188, provided for seizure of merchandise as security for fines. See section 542 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
#### Colonial Operating Corporation, Appellant, v. Hannan Sales & Service, Inc., Respondent.

Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ.; Lewis, J., not voting.
### Part B—Federal Family Education Loan Program

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Part B of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, comprising this part, was originally enacted by Pub. L. 89–329, title IV, Nov. 8, 1965, 79 Stat. 1236, and amended by Pub. L. 89–698, Oct. 29, 1966, 80 Stat. 1066; Pub. L. 89–752, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1240; Pub. L. 89–794, Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1451; Pub. L. 90–460, Aug. 3, 1968, 82 Stat. 634; Pub. L. 90–575, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1014; Pub. L. 91–206, Mar. 10, 1970, 84 Stat. 49; Pub. L. 92–318, June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 93–269, Apr. 18, 1974, 88 Stat. 87; Pub. L. 93–604, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1959; Pub. L. 94–273, Apr. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 375; Pub. L. 94–328, June 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 94–482, Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2081; S. Res. 4, Feb. 4, 1977; Pub. L. 95–43, June 15, 1977, 91 Stat. 213; Pub. L. 95–561, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2143; Pub. L. 95–566, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2402; Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2549; Pub. L. 95–630, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3641; S. Res. 30, Mar. 7, 1979; Pub. L. 96–49, Aug. 13, 1979, 93 Stat. 351; Pub. L. 96–88, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 668; Pub. L. 96–374, Oct. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 1367; Pub. L. 97–35, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 357; Pub. L. 97–115, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1595; Pub. L. 97–301, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1400; Pub. L. 98–79, Aug. 15, 1983, 97 Stat. 476; Pub. L. 99–272, Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 82; Pub. L. 99–320, May 23, 1986, 100 Stat. 491. Such part is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 99–498, title IV, §402(a), Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1353, without reference to such intervening amendments because of the extensive revision of part B by Pub. L. 99–498.
(No. 78-CC-1332

#### Zack Morris, Jr., Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed November 2, 1978.*

Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

*797In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl.__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 1,352

 1,345

 1,307

 1,309

 1,321

 1,324

 1,322

 1,318

 1,342

 1,379

 1,425

 1,452

 1,438

 1,407

 1,350

 1,330

 1,288

 1,229

 1,178

 1,134

 1,095

 1,057

 994

 960

 877

 825

 786

 746

 704

 659

 606

 1,138

 1,132

 1,127

 1,153

 1,170

 1,177

 1,194

 1,177

 1,215

 1,233

 1,223

 1,228

 1,233

 1,233

 1,245

 1,263

 1,200

 1,134

 1,090

 1,050

 996

 911

 873

 717

 677

 645

 607

 599

 555

 462

 460

 1,256

 1,248

 1,241

 1,251

 1,257

 1,265

 1,259

 1,252

 1,269

 1,290

 1,305

 1,316

 1,319

 1,315

 1,309

 1,303

 1,245

 1,178

 1,131

 1,092

 1,049

 989

 940

 870

 817

 768

 728

 687

 648

 598

 564

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 5, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

FARRAR PARK AT DUTCH SLOUGH
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Morris S. Arnold, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth

Circuit, sitting by designation.

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ABRAHAM FLORES-ANGELES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10248

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00506-SRB-4

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: ARNOLD, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Appellant Abraham Flores-Angeles (“Flores-Angeles”) appeals his

conviction and sentence for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1203 (Hostage Taking and

FILED

SEP 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Conspiracy to Commit Hostage Taking), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Possessing,

Using, and Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence), and

8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) (Harboring Illegal Aliens). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Flores-Angeles argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1)

excluding I-213 immigration forms from evidence, and failing to allow FloresAngeles to use these forms to cross-examine witnesses; and (2) imposing on

Flores-Angeles a sentence of 132 months imprisonment. 

A district court abuses its discretion “when it makes an error of law, [when

it] rests its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when we are left with

a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of

judgment.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1283 (9th Cir. 2009)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Even applying this normal abuse of discretion

standard rather than the plain error standard advocated by the Appellee, the district

court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the immigration forms from

evidence. Defense counsel’s explanation of the forms’ relevance, even assuming it

was offered in a timely manner, does not convince us that the district court erred. 

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in sentencing FloresAngeles to 132 months in prison. See United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069,
3

1089 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (explaining that a sentence is reasonable if “the

record as a whole reflects rational and meaningful consideration of the factors

enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.
# fAA-"L.OIO-II~3

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?



### Organization National Business Aircraft Association Regional Airline Association Aircrafl Owners & Pilots Association ATA ATA Person Contacted EliColti 

### I Dave Loiterer Robert Hackman Craig Fabian 1\'1Lopez 

### Dale Response
Exhibit 21.1 

 

Impco Technologies, Inc. 

Subsidiaries of Impco Technologies, Inc., a corporation organized and

existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of 

Delaware. 

 

Impco Technologies Pty. Ltd 

Impco Technologies (SA) Pty. Ltd 

Impco Technologies (NSW) Pty. Ltd 

Impco Technologies Fuel Systems Pty, Ltd. 

Impco Technologies Japan, KK 

Grupo IMPCO Mexicano 

IMPCO Beru Technologies B.V. 

IMPCO-Beru Technologies, GmbH 

IMPCO-Beru Technologies, S.a.r.l. 

IMPCO Technologies, Ltd. 

Minda Impco Technologies, Ltd. 

Minda Impco Ltd. 

CNGC-IMPCO Technologies, LLC 

IMPCO—Egypt 

B.R.C. S.r.l.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,195.14

 1,195.26

 1,195.30

 1,195.32

 1,195.33

 1,195.34

 1,195.35

 1,195.37

 1,195.41

 1,195.48

 1,195.54

 1,195.59

 1,195.65

 1,195.71

 1,195.76

 1,195.82

 1,195.86

 1,196.06

 1,196.52

 1,197.05

 1,197.31

 1,197.81

 1,198.43

 1,198.46

 1,198.41

 1,198.46

 1,198.50

 1,199.13

 1,199.03

 1,198.73

 1,200.83

 43.04

 43.24

 43.31

 43.34

 43.36

 43.37

 43.39

 43.42

 43.49

 43.61

 43.71

 43.79

 43.89

 43.99

 44.07

 44.17

 44.24

 44.57

 45.35

 46.25

 46.70

 47.57

 48.66

 48.71

 48.62

 48.71

 48.78

 49.90

 49.72

 49.19

 53.00

STORAGE

+0.10

+0.20

+0.07

+0.03

+0.02

+0.02

+0.02

+0.03

+0.07

+0.12

+0.10

+0.08

+0.10

+0.10

+0.08

+0.10

+0.07

+0.33

+0.78

+0.90

+0.45

+0.87

+1.09

+0.05

-0.09

+0.09

+0.07

+1.12

-0.18

-0.53

+3.81

CHANGE

54

121

37

21

12

13

12

19

38

62

54

45

52

53

45

54

36

169

397

457

229

438

701

202

89

222

252

1,604

791

259

8,000

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 147

 173

 130

 173

 210

 1,036

 877

 524

 6,073

SPILL

 1

 14

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

OUTLET

 3

 7

 3

 3

 3

 3

 3

 1

 3

 3

 3

 2

 1

 2

 2

 3

 2

 0

 3

 2

 1

 0

 3

 1

 2

 4

 5

 2

 4

 2

 3

C.F.S.

 .06

 .14

 .05

 .05

 .05

 .05

 .05

 .01

 .05

 .05

 .06

 .03

 .02

 .03

 .03

 .05

 .04

 .00

 .06

 .04

 .01

 .00

 .05

 .02

 .03

 .07

 .09

 .04

 .07

 .04

 .05

INCHES

 .17

 .05

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .00

 1.37

 .81

 .12

 .51

 .45

 .27

 .00

 .00

 .29

 .00

 1.36

 .10

 .02

 2.21

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2005 EAST PARK RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 03/14/2006

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +10.07 14,538 44 9,343 79 1.39 7.74

ACRE-FEET +10,070 28,836 87 18,532 157

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 AM.

SUMMARY RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 18,532

OUTLET

TOTAL

 87

 18,619

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 7.74

JULY 1, 2005 9.68

 42.94
### subpart 2—state programs
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 6,965

 7,178

 6,814

 6,630

 7,193

 8,140

 6,825

 6,514

 6,173

 6,643

 5,906

 6,617

 7,781

 9,225

 9,004

 8,572

 8,466

 7,869

 7,723

 7,281

 6,712

 5,924

 5,899

 5,794

 6,217

 6,682

 8,033

 8,803

 8,591

 9,059

 710

 597

 768

 675

 832

 1,148

 754

 773

 1,684

 836

 1,067

 980

 1,152

 1,332

 1,062

 1,045

 1,038

 1,269

 1,021

 1,026

 1,505

 896

 1,159

 1,191

 1,340

 1,489

 1,765

 1,369

 1,110

 1,138

 3,531

 3,463

 3,536

 3,372

 3,910

 4,311

 3,798

 3,399

 3,643

 3,030

 2,927

 3,368

 4,052

 4,871

 4,889

 4,480

 4,354

 4,472

 4,251

 4,037

 4,221

 3,597

 3,302

 3,187

 3,068

 3,441

 4,178

 4,320

 4,546

 4,458

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 1, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 39,536

 39,399

 39,293

 39,369

 40,787

 42,913

 44,190

 44,961

 45,953

 46,681

 47,456

 48,446

 49,643

 51,211

 52,569

 53,586

 54,404

 55,504

 55,845

 55,571

 55,994

 56,192

 55,851

 56,008

 56,149

 56,222

 56,348

 55,797

 55,454

 55,432

 2,824

 2,814

 2,807

 2,812

 2,913

 3,065

 3,156

 3,212

 3,282

 3,334

 3,390

 3,460

 3,546

 3,658

 3,755

 3,828

 3,886

 3,965

 3,989

 3,969

 4,000

 4,014

 3,989

 4,001

 4,011

 4,016

 4,025

 3,986

 3,961

 3,959

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 287

 290

 290

 294

 298

 295

 292

 290

 284

 284

 301

 296

 292

 290

 291

 296

 310

 313

 328

 332

 329

 330

 341

 354

 354

 350

 343

 339

 339

 337

 273

 271

 271

 276

 275

 267

 276

 265

 252

 253

 252

 249

 275

 241

 281

 279

 278

 280

 282

 282

 275

 285

 291

 295

 296

 299

 293

 283

 289

 291

 280

 282

 281

 283

 286

 288

 285

 280

 270

 270

 281

 272

 283

 279

 286

 288

 290

 293

 303

 307

 302

 304

 309

 319

 323

 326

 319

 319

 318

 316

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 9, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

FARRAR PARK AT DUTCH SLOUGH
### **CHAPTER 16—PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION**
(No. 78-CC-2035

#### Raymond C. Maier, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent

*Opinion filed May 17,1979.*

*925Per Curiam.

This claim coming on to be heard on the joint stipulation of the parties hereto, and the Court being fully advised in the premises:

This Court Finds that this claim is for a retroactive pay increase granted in accordance with the revenue receipts provision of the collective bargaining agreements. An investigation of this claim by Personal Services 001-42662-1120-0000 determined that money was appropriated for this expenditure by appropriation No. State Contribution Retirement System 001-42662-1161-000 and that a total of $646.32 and none, respectively (funds available for transfer) was remaining in this appropriation at the time of the lapsing of said appropriation. The amount of $344.80 which was due would have been paid in the regular course of business had the claim been presented to the proper office at the appropriate time. The sole reason said claim was not previously paid is due to the lapse of the appropriation for the period during which the debt was incurred, the same having been confirmed by the written report of the Department of Corrections a copy of said report being attached to the joint stipulation of the parties.

We find that Claimant is entitled to back salary in the gross amount of $320.00 plus employer contributions of $24.80 for a total employe benefit of $344.80.

It is, therefore, ordered that Claimant, Raymond C. Maier, be and is hereby awarded the total employee benefit of $344.80 to be disbursed and credited in accordance with our above finding.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, James G. Clark, Chief Financial Officer of Education Lending Group, Inc.
(the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the year ending
June 30, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and

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


Date:  August 14, 2002                       By:  /s/  James G. Clark
                                                  -------------------

                                             Name:  James G. Clark
                                             Title: Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1


                            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 Specialized Health Products
International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey M. Soinski, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


  /s/ Jeffrey M. Soinski
-------------------------
Jeffrey M. Soinski
Chief Executive Officer
March 7, 2006
#### Henry Hendrickson, Respondent, v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Company, Appellant, and United Port Service, Inc., Defendant, Respondent and Appellant.

Present—'Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

DAY HIGH

 444

 412

 411

 407

 394

 385

 381

 377

 367

 357

 347

 338

 329

 321

 309

 299

 294

 296

 294

 297

 294

 295

 311

 317

 318

 295

 292

 294

 298

 303

 330

 344

 344

 340

 335

 327

 323

 319

 315

 312

 307

 299

 286

 282

 284

 277

 281

 284

 282

 281

 282

 282

 281

 267

 268

 262

 267

 267

 374

 369

 371

 367

 363

 356

 348

 342

 336

 330

 324

 318

 311

 302

 293

 291

 289

 287

 289

 289

 288

 287

 292

 299

 290

 279

 278

 279

 281

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 3, 2016

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
### Part D—National Programs