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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Clipper Realty Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Section 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: | March 30, 2017 | Signed: | /s/ David Bistricer    
|----- | -------------- | ------- | -----------------------
|      |                |         | David Bistricer        
|      |                |         | Chief Executive Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 13, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135509 & (48) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Petitioner-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman, Justices v SC: 135509 COA: 269720 Ingham CC: 04-001141-AA BUREAU OF SAFETY AND REGULATION, GENERAL INDUSTRY SAFETY DIVISION, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion to permit representation by foreign counsel is GRANTED. The application fo r leave to appeal the Novemb er 15, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENI ED, because we are no t persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., dissents and states as follows:

The Michigan Administrative Code, Ru le 408.13308(1), pr ovides that “[a]n employer shall assess the workpl ace to determine if hazards th at necessitate the use of personal protective equipm ent are present or are lik ely to be present.” 1 Petitioner United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), received two civil c itations for violating this rule. It is undisputed that UPS did not assess either of its Michigan workplaces. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals vacated the cita tions, holding that U PS need not perform a separate hazard assessment at each wo rkplace to comply with the rule. 2 This decision will have serious implications on workplace safet y in Michigan an d appears to be contrary to the language of Ru le 408.13308(1). The Supreme Court should gr ant leave to appeal to give this important issue the full consideration it deserves.

C AVANAGH , J., joins the statement of K ELLY , J.

1 This rule was promulgated under the authority of the Mi chigan Occupational Safety and Health Act. MCL 408.1001 et seq

.
2 United Parcel Service, Inc v Bu reau of Safety & Regulation, 277 Mich App 192 (2007).

t0610 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.

June 13, 2008

Clerk
# C_2016428EN.01001401.xml

| 21.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Søndagsavisen v Commission

(Case T-167/14) (1)

1

((State Aid - Aid scheme to support production and innovation aid for written media - Decision not to raise objections - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Procedural rights of the interested parties - No serious difficulties - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 428/14)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Søndagsavisen A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented initially by: M. Honoré and C. Fornø, lawyers, and subsequently by: M. Honoré, lawyer)

Applicant

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7870 final of 20 November 2013 concerning State aid SA.36366 (2013/N) notified by the Kingdom of Denmark Production in favour of production and innovation aid to written media.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Søndagsavisen A/S to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Søndagsavisen A/S to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

1

---
# C_2014351EN.01001701.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/17

---

Action brought on 24 July 2014 — Research Engineering & Manufacturing v OHIM — Nedschroef Holding (TRILOBULAR)

(Case T-558/14)

2014/C 351/21

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. (Middletown, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Gilbert, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nedschroef Holding BV (Helmond, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 May 2014 given in Case R 442/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 May 2014 given in Case R 442/2013-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community trade mark registration No 668 566

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) CTMR in conjuction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c)

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the Community trade mark invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
From: Tendulkar, Vijay [mailto:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:42 PM 

To: Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; 

Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Silcox, Clark; 

Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg 

Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; 

Jerry Schoen; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. 

Sampat; Matt Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; 

Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard Parker; Rick 

Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; 

Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo 

Subject: NEMA transformer section comments regarding DOE negotiated rulemaking process and 

analysis for distribution transformers 

                TO:  Mr. Richard Parker,  members of LVDT Committee, NEMA Members, DOE

                The attached comments are offered to the DOE, Navigant, LBL and the Committee members

concerning the negotiated rulemaking process for distribution transformer energy efficiency standards.

                The basic points presented in the comments are:

1) Limitations of design software

2) Problems with core materials

3) Difficulties with mixed low volume production of LVDT by small manufacturers

4) Exemptions for Data Center Transformers and Solar Power Transformers

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                    With Kind Regards,

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                    V. B. Tendulkar
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10Q
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,272
<INVENTORY>                                      3,956
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,097
<PP&E>                                          81,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,247
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,153
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,883)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,708
<SALES>                                          4,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,946
<CGS>                                            3,753
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,703
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    14
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (339)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,352)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,352)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8089 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8089

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require certain 
       additional provider screening under the Medicaid program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare and Medicaid Fraud 
Prevention Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAID PROVIDER SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 1902(kk)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1396a(kk)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The State'' and inserting:
                    ``(A) In general.--The State''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Additional provider screening.--Beginning 
                January 1, 2027, as part of the enrollment (or 
                reenrollment or revalidation of enrollment) of a 
                provider or supplier under this title, and not less 
                frequently than quarterly during the period that such 
                provider or supplier is so enrolled, the State conducts 
                a check of the Death Master File (as such term is 
                defined in section 203(d) of the Bipartisan Budget Act 
                of 2013) to determine whether such provider or supplier 
                is deceased.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 8089

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require certain 
       additional provider screening under the Medicaid program.
```
§ 74.1104 D&C Blue No. 4. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive D&C Blue No. 4 is principally the diammonium salt of ethyl[4-[*p*[ethyl(*m-* sulfobenzyl)ami-no]-α-(*o-* sulfophenyl)benzylidene]-2,5-cyclo-hexadien-1-ylidene] (*m-* sulfobenzyl) ammonium hydroxide inner salt with smaller amounts of the isomeric diammonium salts of ethyl [4-[*p-*[ethyl(*p-* sulfobenzyl) amino]-α-(*o-* sulfophenyl) benzylidene]-2,5-cyclohexadien - 1-ylidene](*p-* sulfobenzyl) ammonium hydroxide inner salt and ethyl[4-[*p-*[ethyl (*o-* sulfobenzyl)amino]-α-(*o-* sulfophenyl) benzylidene]-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene] (*o-* sulfobenzyl) ammonium hydroxide inner salt.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for use in externally applied drugs made with D&C Blue No. 4 may contain only those diluents that are suitable and that are listed in part 73 of this chapter for use in color additive mixtures for coloring externally applied drugs.
( b ) *Specifications.* D&C Blue No. 4 shall conform to the following specifications and shall be free from impurities other than those named to the extent that such impurities may be avoided by good manufacturing practice: Sum of volatile matter (at 135 °C) and chlorides and sulfates (calculated as sodium salts), not more than 15 percent. Water-insoluble matter, not more than 0.2 percent. Leuco base, not more than 5 percent. Sum of *o-, m*, and *p-* sulfobenzaldehydes, ammonium salt, not more than 1.5 percent. N-ethyl, N-(*m-* sulfobenzyl) sulfanilic acid ammonium salt, not more than 0.3 percent. Subsidiary colors, not more than 6 percent. Chromium (as Cr), not more than 50 parts per million. Lead (as Pb), not more than 20 parts per million. Arsenic (as As), not more than 3 parts per million. Mercury (as Hg), not more than 1 part per million. Total color, not less than 85 percent.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* D&C Blue No. 4 may be safely used in externally applied drugs in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( d ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive and any mixtures prepared therefrom intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Certification.* All batches of D&C Blue No. 4 shall be certified in accordance with regulations in part 80 of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5240 Anesthesia breathing circuit. ( a ) *Identification.* An anesthesia breathing circuit is a device that is intended to administer medical gases to a patient during anesthesia. It provides both an inhalation and exhalation route and may include a connector, adaptor, and Y-piece.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 868.9.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 1120, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38794, July 25, 2001]
§ 884.3 Effective dates of requirement for premarket approval. A device included in this part that is classified into class III (premarket approval) shall not be commercially distributed after the date shown in the regulation classifying the device unless the manufacturer has an approval under section 515 of the act (unless an exemption has been granted under section 520(g)(2) of the act). An approval under section 515 of the act consists of FDA's issuance of an order approving an application for premarket approval (PMA) for the device or declaring completed a product development protocol (PDP) for the device. ( a ) Before FDA requires that a device commercially distributed before the enactment date of the amendments, or a device that has been found substantially equivalent to such a device, has an approval under section 515 of the act FDA must promulgate a regulation under section 515(b) of the act requiring such approval, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. Such a regulation under section 515(b) of the act shall not be effective during the grace period ending on the 90th day after its promulgation or on the last day of the 30th full calendar month after the regulation that classifies the device into class III is effective, whichever is later. See section 501(f)(2)(B) of the act. Accordingly, unless an effective date of the requirement for premarket approval is shown in the regulation for a device classified into class III in this part, the device may be commercially distributed without FDA's issuance of an order approving a PMA or declaring completed a PDP for the device. If FDA promulgates a regulation under section 515(b) of the act requiring premarket approval for a device, section 501(f)(1)(A) of the act applies to the device.
( b ) Any new, not substantially equivalent, device introduced into commercial distribution on or after May 28, 1976, including a device formerly marketed that has been substantially altered, is classified by statute (section 513(f) of the act) into class III without any grace period and FDA must have issued an order approving a PMA or declaring completed a PDP for the device before the device is commercially distributed unless it is reclassified. If FDA knows that a device being commercially distributed may be a “new” device as defined in this section because of any new intended use or other reasons, FDA may codify the statutory classification of the device into class III for such new use. Accordingly, the regulation for such a class III device states that as of the enactment date of the amendments, May 28, 1976, the device must have an approval under section 515 of the act before commercial distribution.
[52 FR 17740, May 11, 1987]
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1850 AC-powered slitlamp biomicroscope. ( a ) *Identification.* An AC-powered slitlamp biomicroscope is an AC-powered device that is a microscope intended for use in eye examination that projects into a patient's eye through a control diaphragm a thin, intense beam of light.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is intended only for the visual examination of the anterior segment of the eye, is classified as Group 1 per FDA-recognized consensus standard ANSI Z80.36, does not provide any quantitative output, and is not intended for screening or automated diagnostic indications, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 84 FR 71817, Dec. 30, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1450 Corneal radius measuring device. ( a ) *Identification.* A corneal radius measuring device is an AC-powered device intended to measure corneal size by superimposing the image of the cornea on a scale at the focal length of the lens of a small, hand held, single tube penscope or eye gauge magnifier.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9, only when the device does not include computer software in the unit or topographers.
[55 FR 48442, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63013, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38811, July 25, 2001]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CHARLES RAY BARTKOWIAK, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30150 

D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00277-EJL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Charles Ray Bartkowiak appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-30150

Bartkowiak contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because 

the district court improperly presumed that the Guidelines range was reasonable,

and placed undue weight on the Guidelines and the need for deterrence. The court 

did not abuse its discretion in imposing Bartkowiak’s sentence. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record shows that the court did not presume 

the reasonableness of the Guidelines range or place undue weight on any single 

sentencing factor. To the contrary, after evaluating several of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3353(a) sentencing factors and the “mitigating circumstances that are not usually 

encountered in a case of this nature,” the court imposed a sentence seven months 

below the Guidelines range. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively 

reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the 

circumstances, including Bartkowiak’s criminal history and the seriousness of the 

offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.