alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report of IMPSAT Fiber Networks on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ricardo A. Verdaguer, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1. The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 registrant.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: November 14, 2006



/s/ RICARDO A. VERDAGUERRicardo A. Verdaguer President and Chief Executive Officer
### SUBCHAPTER I—MICRONESIA AND MARSHALL ISLANDS
Exhibit 12.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Boaz Eitan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F (the "Report") of Saifun Semiconductors Ltd. (the "Company"): 2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this Report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, theperiods presented in this Report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to theCompany, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities,particularly during the period inwhich this Report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theCompany’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in thisReport our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this Reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this Report any change inthe Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurredduring the period covered by theAnnual Report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’sinternal control over financialreporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control overfinancial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affectthe Company’s ability to record,process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant rolein the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:April 11, 2006       By:  /s/ Boaz Eitan         Dr. Boaz EitanChief Executive Officer and Chairman
#### George McDougald, Appellant, v. Henry Nearing et al., Respondents.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, by default, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
<PAGE>
[Sbs Tower LOGO]                                                    Exhibit 10.2



October 29, 2002
Raul Alarcon, Jr.
12 Indian Creek Road
Miami Beach, FL 33154


Dear Raul Alarcon, Jr.:

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.
1999 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"), you have been granted a Nonqualified Stock
Option, to purchase 100,000 shares (the "Option") of Class A common stock as
outlined below.


             Granted To:   Raul Alarcon, Jr.
                           SSN ###-##-####

             Grant Date:   October 27, 2002

         Option Granted:   100,000

 Option Price per Share:   $6.13      Total Cost to Exercise:   $613,000.00

        Expiration Date:   October 27, 2012, unless terminated earlier.

       Vesting Schedule:   100% immediately

        Transferability:   Not transferable except in accordance with the Plan.


                                            Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc.


                                            By: /s/ Joseph A. Garcia
                                                -------------------------------

By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Option granted on
the date shown above, which has been issued to me under the terms and
conditions of the Plan. I further acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Plan
and agree to conform to all of the terms and conditions of the Option and the
Plan.


Signature:  /s/ Raul Alarcon, Jr.              Date:   10/29/02
            ----------------------------             --------------
             Raul Alarcon, Jr.

                                  [LETTERHEAD]
Douglas Hetzler

RedJaxx Productions

536 Treyburn Cir.

San Ramon, CA 94583

I, Douglas Hetzler, hereby submit this petition for exemption under Section 333; FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333.

I request this exemption in order to operate my UAV/UAS, DJI Inspire 1 Professional 

Quadcopter Aircraft, in order to provide services for profit to include aerial photography, aerial 

cinematography, aerial filming and photography for real estate, construction firms, agricultural 

modeling, crop monitoring operations, aerial mapping, special events to include but not limited 

to weddings, private or public parties/events, business advertising, promotional events, 

geological surveying, and environmental studies.

The ability to provide these services to other local businesses and individuals in my community 

will benefit them by opening up opportunities they otherwise did not have before. Traditional 

methods of aerial photography/videography are simply not viable options for the average 

consumer as they are costly and involve greater risks to everyone involved; i.e. the use of larger 

aircraft carrying humans and flammable fuel. By utilizing the UAV/UAS the same results can be 

achieved with much safer conditions. 

Prior to each flight/operation of the UAV/UAS, I will conduct a Pre-Flight Safety Inspection. All 

flights will be performed areas cleared for flight using www.skyvector.com to make sure we are 

in authorized airspace. Flights will not take place over densely populated areas or private 

property without the owner’s permission. The UAV/UAS will only be operated within visual line 

of sight and will not be flown near airports or above 400 feet. Any and all repairs will be 

performed only by the manufacturers authorized repair facilities/ providers. The FAA can be 

confident that operations of this UAV/UAS will achieve at least the equivalent or greater level of 

safety.

The requests of this petition are similar to those of Mr. Jase W. Robak, Mr. Todd Thomas Drone 
Pics, Brandon Drivon, and Mr. Mike Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, all of whom have received 

Section 333 exemptions for comparable aircraft for similar operations.

The specific sections of 14 C.F.R from which I am seeking exemption are as follows:

14 C.F.R. Part 21;

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4), & (5);

14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 61.133 (a);

14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) & (c);

14 C.F.R 91.7(a)

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2);

14C.F.R. 91.109(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.119;

14 C.F.R. 91.121;

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1);

14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(2};

14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b).

I truly thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Douglas Hetzler 

President

RedJaxx Productions
## SERVED: OCTOBER 1, 2012
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF GOJET AIRLINES, LLC FAADOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0876 ' 

## . NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

## -2

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012CE030041) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached Service List.**~--··'** 

### Ronme A. 

### Yoder ChiefAdministrative La: Attachment

- Service List j: 

## 30FDMS No. FAA-2012-0876
· (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration· 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. WilburWright Building-Suite 2W10001

Mr. Richard 

### A Leach, CEO GoJetAirlines, LLC, 

### Respondent 11495 Navaid Road, Suite 303 Bridgeton, MO 63044 · ONE COPY

David J. 

### A Hayes III,

### Respondent's Counsel Vice-President & General Counsel Trans States Holdings, Inc. 11495 Navaid Road Bridgeton, MO 63044 TEL: 314-222-4316 FAX: 314-222-4311 David B. Kessler, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office oftheRegional Counsel, ACE-7· Central Region Federal Aviation Administration Room 506, DOT Building 901 Locust Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3763 FAX: 816-329-3771

· 1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWrightBuilding-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591;**~ttention:** HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### AdministrativeLawJudge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, 1200 

### New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington,

### DC 20590 TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 StaffAssistant 202-366-5121 FAX: 202-366-7536



### -3-
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.715 Do I need a global positioning system (GPS) for all MODUs? All MODUs must have a minimum of two functioning GPS transponders at all times, and you must provide to BSEE real-time access to the GPS data prior to and during each hurricane season. ( a ) The GPS must be capable of monitoring the position and tracking the path in real-time if the MODU moves from its location during a severe storm.
( b ) You must install and protect the tracking system's equipment to minimize the risk of the system being disabled.
( c ) You must place the GPS transponders in different locations for redundancy to minimize risk of system failure.
( d ) Each GPS transponder must be capable of transmitting data for at least 7 days after a storm has passed.
( e ) If the MODU is moved off location in the event of a storm, you must immediately begin to record the GPS location data.
( f ) You must contact the Regional Office and allow real-time access to the MODU location data. When you contact the Regional Office, provide the following: ( 1 ) Name of the lessee and operator with contact information;
( 2 ) MODU name;
( 3 ) Initial date and time; and
( 4 ) How you will provide GPS real-time access.
#### Charles N. Nelson and others, Executors, *vs.*Adolph Munch and others.

November 25, 1876.

Attachment — Affidavit not Inconsistent. — An affidavit for an attachment, stating that defendant has assigned and disposed of his property, with intent to delay and defraud his creditors, and that he is about to assign and dispose of his property, with like intent, is not necessarily objectionable for inconsistency.

Same — Motion to Dissolve — Verified Answer used as Affidavit. — Upon a motion to dissolve an attachment a defendant may properly use his verified answer as an affidavit, so far as its contents are pertinent.

Same — Rebutting Affidavits of Defendant. — In the exercise of sound discretion it is competent for the court, upon the hearing of such motion, to permit the defendant to read affidavits rebutting the affidavits of the plaintiff read upon such hearing.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for *230Kamsey county, *Wühin,*J., presiding, dissolving an attachment of the property of defendant Adolph Munch.

*F. Q. Palmer,*for appellants.

*Morris Lamprey,*for respondents.

' Berry, J.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment.

1. The writ was issued upon an affidavit stating that defendant Adolph Munch has assigned and disposed of his property with intent to delay and defraud his creditors, and that he is about to assign and dispose of his property with like intent. These statements are not, as claimed by respondents, necessarily objectionable for inconsistency, since it may be true, at any given time, that a person has assigned and disposed of some part of his property with the intent mentioned, and that he is about to assign and dispose of another part with like intent. The case differs from *Hinds*v. *Fagebank,*9 Minn. 68, because there the property which the defendant was charged with having disposed of, and being about to dispose of, consisted, as the court says, of “ a single item only.”

2. Upon a motion to dissolve an attachment a defendant may properly use his verified answer as an affidavit, so far as its contents are pertinent.

In the exercise of sound discretion it is competent for the court, upon the hearing of such motion, to permit the defendant to read affidavits rebutting the affidavits- of the plaintiff read upon such hearing. *■

In the case at bar there is no reason to suppose that the court below abused its discretion in receiving the affidavits offered in rebuttal.

3. As respects the merits of the order appealed from, after a careful consideration of the affidavits on both sides and of the positions taken by counsel, we are of opinion that the court below was justified in dissolving the attachment.

Order affirmed.
----

| (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. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March      20, 2009 | /s/ Ronald A.      Duncan    |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                 | Ronald A.      Duncan        |
|                                 | Chief      Executive Officer |
|                                 | GCI,      Inc.               |

----
§ 291.105 What must a complaint contain? For purposes of this subpart, a complaint means a comprehensive written brief stating the legal and factual basis for the allegation that a shipper was denied open and nondiscriminatory access, together with supporting material. A complaint must: ( a ) Clearly identify the action or inaction which is alleged to violate 43 U.S.C. 1334(e) or (f)(1)(A);
( b ) Explain how the action or inaction violates 43 U.S.C. 1334(e) or (f)(1)(A);
( c ) Explain how the action or inaction affects your interests, including practical, operational, or other non-financial impacts;
( d ) Estimate any financial impact or burden;
( e ) State the specific relief or remedy requested; and
( f ) Include all documents that support the facts in your complaint including, but not limited to, contracts and any affidavits that may be necessary to support particular factual allegations.
#### In re PURBY. In the matter of the charges against Alonzo A. Purby, an attorney of the Supreme Court of the state of New York.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 17, 1903.)

PER CURIAM.

Ordered that Henry P. Pendrick, Esq., of Saratoga Springs, N. Y., be appointed referee to take testimony and report to the court, with his opinion thereon, and that Horace E. McKnight, Esq., of Ballston Spa, N. Y., be substituted as attorney in place of George R. Salisbury, Esq., to prosecute the proceeding.
#### In re EAST ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-NINTH ST.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 13, 1903.)

In the matter of East One Hundred and Seventy-Ninth street.

No opinion. Motion denied on payment of $10 costs, and on payment of an additional $10 leave given to-apply to the court below to open default.
**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 Quarterly Report of Cardima, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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.




November
                19,
                2007
            By:
            /s/ Rob
              CheneyRob
              CheneyChief
              Executive
              Officer
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William C. Mathews, Appellant, v. Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Motion for reargument of motion to appeal on typewritten papers denied. (See memorandum filed in *People ex rel. Maconi*v. *Murphy,*11 A D 2d 1095.)
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 127801(37) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 127801 COA: 249414 Saginaw CC: 03-022659-FH ROY TILLMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e motion for reconsideration of th is Court's order of July 26, 2005 is considered, and it is DENIED, b ecause it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2005

Clerk
§ 880.104 Applicability of part 880. ( a ) Part 880, in effect as of November 5, 1979, applies to all proposals for which a notification of selection was not issued before the November 5, 1979 effective date of part 880. (See 24 CFR part 880, revised as of April 1, 1980.) Where a notification of selection was issued for a proposal before the November 5, 1979 effective date, part 880, in effect as of November 5, 1979, applies if the owner notified HUD within 60 calendar days that the owner wished the provisions of part 880, effective November 5, 1979, to apply and promptly brought the proposal into conformance.
( b ) Subparts E (Housing Assistance Payments Contract) and F (Management) of this part apply to all projects for which an Agreement was not executed before the November 5, 1979, effective date of part 880. Where an Agreement was so executed: ( 1 ) The owner and HUD may agree to make the revised subpart E of this part applicable and to execute appropriate amendments to the Agreement and/or Contract.
( 2 ) The owner and HUD may agree to make the revised subpart F of this part applicable (with or without the limitation on distributions) and to execute appropriate amendments to the Agreement and/or Contract.
( c ) Section 880.607 (Termination of tenancy and modification of leases) applies to all families.
( d ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, the provisions of 24 CFR part 5 apply to all projects, regardless of when an Agreement was executed.
[61 FR 13587, Mar. 27, 1996, as amended at 65 FR 16722, Mar. 29, 2000]
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cardima, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry D. Michaels, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to § 1350 of Chapter 63 of 18 U.S.C., 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.



|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|/s/ Barry D. Michaels                                                       
|Barry D. Michaels Interim Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary May 11, 2005
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Edwin K. Hunter and Hunter, Hunter & Sonnier, LLC v. Preston 

Marshall, Individually and Rusk Capital Management, L.L.C.

Appellate case number: 01-16-00636-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-35950

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

Appellees, Preston Marshall and Rusk Capital Management, L.L.C., have filed an 

“Unopposed Motion for Continuance of Oral Argument,” which is scheduled for February 21,

2018, in order to “complete the appellate record in accordance with this Court’s February 15, 2018 

order.” The motion is granted. The case will be set for submission at a later date.

No later than 30 days from the date of this order, the parties shall file a report advising this 

Court of the status of the proceedings to supplement the clerk’s record with the in-camera exhibits 

if such supplemental record containing the in-camera exhibits has not yet been filed with this 

Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 

Date: February 16, 2018