alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zebra Resources,  Inc. (the
"Company")  for the year ended August 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Dan Gravelle,  as Chief
Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certifies,  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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: November 25, 2008                  By: /s/ Dan Gravelle
                                            ------------------------------------
                                             Dan Gravelle
                                             Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Nathan Silver, Appellant, and Samuel Silver, Respondent.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 10, 1979, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Schwartz, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur — Murphy, *P.J.,*Birns, Fein, Lupiano and Ross, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Margaret M. Tomeck, Deceased. Edward M. Tomeck, as Executor of Margaret M. Tomeck, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant; Robert Christopher, as Commissioner of Social Services of Saratoga County, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Submitted August 13, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 29 AD3d 156.

Motion for reargument denied *[see*8 NY3d 724].
Exhibit 31.1

I, John M. Presley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

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

4. The Companys other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have;

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual
report is being prepared;

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90
days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and

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

5. The
Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

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

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal controls; and

6. The Companys other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|                     |  |                                              
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2009 |  | /s/ John M. Presley                          
|                     |  | John M. Presley                              
|                     |  | Managing Director and Chief Executive 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 Essex Rental Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 30, 2009 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacity 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:




1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Date:
March 30, 2009








/s/
      Ronald Schad----------------------------------------------Ronald
      SchadChief
      Executive Officer
[No. 9071.

Department Two.

December 21, 1910.]

#### B. C. Mosby, *as Receiver of Spokane Columbia River Railroad and Navigation Company, Appellant,*v. H. T. Ahrens, *as Receiver of the Farmers’ Grain & Supply Company,*Respondent.1

Appeal from a judgment of tbe superior court for Spokane county, Kennan, J., entered January 12, 1910, upon findings in favor of tbe defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury.

Affirmed.

*B. C. Mosby, pro se.*

*Merritt, Oswald & Merritt,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 112 Pac. 1135.

Per Curiam.

This is a controversy between two insolvent corporations, through their receivers, the plaintiff (appellant here) suing for the sum of $19,891.19, with interest from a certain date. The case was tried by the court, who found the facts from which was deduced the judgment in favor of the respondent, the court finding that the evidence did not sustain the allegations of the complaint.

The record in this case is somewhat voluminous, but we have examined in detail the testimony of the plaintiff offered in support of the allegations of the complaint, and the testimony offered in rebuttal, as well as the testimony of the defendant, and from such examination we are not able to conclude that the findings of the court were not justified by the evidence. It appears that the findings supported the judgment. An analysis of the testimony in this case would be of no benefit to the parties to the action, and could not be applicable to any other litigation; hence, an indulgence in it would be profitless. What learned counsel for the appellant terms technical errors assigned are without merit.

The judgment will be affirmed.
#### § 54.14 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 23****CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**The Boardof Directors and ShareholdersWSB Financial Group, Inc.Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-8 of WSB Financial Group, Inc., of our reportdated March 31, 2008, with respect to the consolidated statement offinancial condition of WSB Financial Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries asof December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the three yearsin the period ended December 31, 2007, which is included in this Form 10-K ofWSB Financial Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ MossAdams LLP
ALASKA SEAFOOD C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2013

- 0652

DCN: 000 50 CBI

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

.
52.222-24 Preaward On-Site Equal

Opportunity Compliance Evaluation.

As prescribed in 22.810(c), insert the following provision:

Preaward On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation (Feb 1999)

If a contract in the amount of $10 million or more will result from this solicitation, the prospective

Contractor and its known first-tier subcontractors with anticipated subcontracts of $10 million or

more shall be subject to a preaward compliance evaluation by the Office of Federal Contract

Compliance Programs (OFCCP), unless, within the preceding 24 months, OFCCP has conducted an

evaluation and found the prospective Contractor and subcontractors to be in compliance with

Executive Order11246.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.222 [Reserved]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VINODH M. RAGHUBIR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-445-AW-MAF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I have considered the magistrate judge’s October 22, 2020 Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No. 9. I have also considered de novo the Plaintiff’s 

objections. ECF No. 10. It is now ordered that the Report and Recommendation is 

adopted and incorporated into this order. The clerk will enter a judgment that says

“This case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” The 

clerk will then close the file.

Last, I note that attached to the “Objection + Motion to Vacate + Clarity + 

Notice of Acceptance of Waiver of Jurisdiction” (ECF No. 10) was a “Notice of 

Appeal.” Because there was no judgment to appeal, I interpret the Notice of Appeal 

as part of the objection to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. If 

Plaintiff wishes to appeal this order (or the judgment that follows it), he must file a 

separate notice of appeal. 

Case 4:20-cv-00445-AW-MAF Document 11 Filed 12/23/20 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED on December 23, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00445-AW-MAF Document 11 Filed 12/23/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Michael E. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Theodore WHITE, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-17075.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 22, 2007.

Michael E. Allen, Calipatria, CA, pro se. Stephen P. Acquisto, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael E. Allen, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, *Ventura Mobilehome Communities Owners Ass’n v. City of San Buenaventura,*371 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Allen contends that the accrual date for this action was July 15, 2003, rather than November 15, 1999, the date determined by the district court. We are unpersuaded by Allen’s contention because on or before November 15, 1999, he had reason to know of the injury that is the basis for his section 1983 claim. *See Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp.,*923 F.2d 758, 761-62 *448(9th Cir.1991) (we “hold that [appellant’s] § 1988 ... action[ ] accrued for statute of limitations purposes when he first learned of the injury giving rise to his claims”).

Allen contends that the district court did not consider his argument raised for the first time in his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations that the statute of limitations was tolled between 2000 and 2004 while he allegedly attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies. We are unpersuaded because the district court’s order states that it received Allen’s objections and carefully reviewed the entire file de novo.

Allen’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§ 520.6 Preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA). ( a ) *Actions requiring EA.* The following actions would normally require an EA: ( 1 ) Programs, supported in the majority by ARS, which may assist in the transition of a particular technology from field evaluation stage to large-scale demonstration or simulated commercial phase;
( 2 ) Field work having an impact on the local environment such as earth excavation, explosives, weather modifications, or other such techniques; and
( 3 ) The testing outside the laboratory, such as small isolated field plots, of control agents which require containment precautions or either a special license or a permit from a regulatory agency.
( b ) *Multiple agencies actions.* If more than one Federal agency participates in a program activity, the EA shall be prepared by the lead agency as provided in 40 CFR 1501.5.
( c ) *Format and conclusion.* An EA can be in any format provided it covers in a logical and succinct fashion the information necessary for determining whether a proposed Federal action may have a significant environmental impact and thus warrant preparation of an EIS. The EA will contain the information required by 40 CFR 1508.9. This information will include brief discussions of the need for the project or other proposal, alternatives, environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives and a listing of agencies and persons consulted.
( d ) *Decision notice.* Upon completion of an EA, the responsible official will consider the information it contains, decide whether an EIS is required or that no significant environmental impact will occur, and will document the decision and the reasons for it. The decision and the EA shall be available to the public in a manner appropriate to the situation. If there is a finding of no significant impact, the EA may be combined with the decision notice.
§ 51.1860 Color classification. ( a ) The following terms may be used, when specified in connection with the grade statement, in describing the color as an indication of the stage of ripeness of any lot of mature tomatoes of a red fleshed variety: ( 1 ) *Green.* “Green” means that the surface of the tomato is completely green in color. The shade of green color may vary from light to dark;
( 2 ) *Breakers.* “Breakers” means that there is a definite break in color from green to tannish-yellow, pink or red on not more than 10 percent of the surface;
( 3 ) *Turning.* “Turning” means that more than 10 percent but not more than 30 percent of the surface, in the aggregate, shows a definite change in color from green to tannish-yellow, pink, red, or a combination thereof;
( 4 ) *Pink.* “Pink” means that more than 30 percent but not more than 60 percent of the surface, in the aggregate, shows pink or red color;
( 5 ) *Light red.* “Light red” means that more than 60 percent of the surface, in the aggregate, shows pinkish-red or red: *Provided,* That not more than 90 percent of the surface is red color; and,
( 6 ) *Red.* “Red” means that more than 90 percent of the surface, in the aggregate, shows red color.
( b ) Any lot of tomatoes which does not meet the requirements of any of the above color designations may be designated as “Mixed Color”.
( c ) For tolerances see § 51.1861.
( d ) Tomato color standards U.S.D.A. Visual Aid TM—L—1 consists of a chart containing twelve color photographs illustrating the color classification requirements, as set forth in this section. This visual aid may be examined in the Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, South Building, Washington, D.C. 20250; in any field office of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Inspection Service; or upon request of any authorized inspector of such Service. Duplicates of this visual aid may be purchased from The John Henry Co., Post Office Box 1410, Lansing, Michigan 48904.
[38 FR 23932, Sept. 5, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 2791, Jan. 16, 1975. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Thompson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 6, 1978, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. It was improper for the Trial Justice to overrule defense counsel’s objection to the District Attorney’s cross-examination of defendant’s character witness as to specific acts of misconduct on the night of the burglary (see Richardson, Evidence [10th ed], § 153, p 124). However, in light of the witness’ responses to the questions and the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the error was harmless (see *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2659 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the eligibility of 

Indian tribal organizations for grants for the establishment of veterans 

cemeteries on trust lands. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2006 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

eligibility of Indian tribal organizations for grants for 

the establishment of veterans cemeteries on trust lands. 

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 ‘‘Native American Vet5 erans Cemetery Act of 2006’’. 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2659 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF INDIAN TRIBAL ORGANIZATIONS 

2 FOR GRANTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 

3 VETERANS CEMETERIES ON TRUST LANDS. 

4 Section 2408 of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(f)(1) The Secretary may make grants under this 

8 subsection to any tribal organization to assist the tribal 

9 organization in establishing, expanding, or improving vet10 erans’ cemeteries on trust land owned by, or held in trust 

11 for, the tribal organization. 

12 ‘‘(2) Grants under this subsection shall be made in 

13 the same manner, and under the same conditions, as 

14 grants to States are made under the preceding provisions 

15 of this section. 

16 ‘‘(3) In this subsection: 

17 ‘‘(A) The term ‘tribal organization’ has the 

18 meaning given that term in section 3764(4) of this 

19 title. 

20 ‘‘(B) The term ‘trust land’ has the meaning 

21 given that term in section 3764(1) of this title.’’. 

Æ 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### § 58.514 Container fillers.

Shall comply with the 3-A Sanitary Standards for Equipment for Packaging Frozen Desserts and Cottage Cheese.
47.305 Solicitation provisions, contract

clauses, and transportation factors.

(a) The contracting officer shall coordinate transportation factors with the transportation office

during the planning, solicitation, and award phases of the acquisition process (see 47.105).

(b) To the extent feasible, activities shall schedule deliveries to effect savings in transportation costs,

and concomitant reductions in energy consumption by carriers (see 47.305-7 and 47.305-8 for

specific possibilities).

47.305-1 Solicitation requirements.

47.305-2 Solicitations f.o.b. origin and f.o.b. destination-lowest overall cost.

47.305-3 F.o.b. origin solicitations.

47.305-4 F.o.b. destination solicitations.

47.305-5 Destination unknown.

47.305-6 Shipments to ports and air terminals.

47.305-7 Quantity analysis, direct delivery, and reduction of crosshauling and

backhauling.

47.305-8 Consolidation of small shipments and the use of stopoff privileges.

47.305-9 Commodity description and freight classification.

47.305-10 Packing, marking, and consignment instructions.

47.305-11 Options in shipment and delivery.

47.305-12 Delivery of Government-furnished property.

47.305-13 Transit arrangements.

47.305-14 Mode of transportation.

47.305-15 Loading responsibilities of contractors.

47.305-16 Shipping characteristics.

47.305-17 Returnable cylinders.

Parent topic: Subpart 47.3 - Transportation in Supply Contracts
§ 51.33 Application to become a licensed inspector. Application to become a licensed inspector shall be made to the Administrator on forms furnished for that purpose. Each such application shall be filled in and signed by the applicant in his own handwriting, and the application shall contain or be accompanied by: ( a ) A statement of present address, age, height, and weight of the applicant;
( b ) A statement showing education and present and previous occupations, together with names of all employers for whom he has worked with periods of service, during the last 5 years previous to the date of his application;
( c ) A statement by the applicant that he agrees to comply with all terms and conditions of the regulations in this part relating to the duties of inspectors; and
( d ) Such other information as may be required by the Administrator.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

 Case No. 3:19md2885 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

Kelley, 7:20cv153 

 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones 

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 1 

This Order addresses Defendants’ objections and counter-designations to 

Plaintiff’s affirmative deposition designations and Plaintiff’s objections to 

Defendants’ counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions: 

1. Asobo, Nicholas (11/19/2021) 

2. Delgado, Blanca (11/12/2021) 

3. Fauntleroy, Randle (11/18/2021) 

4. Kelley, Michael (10/27/2021) 

SO ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2022. 

 M. CASEY RODGERS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00153-MCR-GRJ Document 109 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 1