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




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


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





In
      connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
      Quarterly Report of Lakeland Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for
      the period ending July 31, 2007(the “Report”), I, Christopher J. Ryan, Chief
      Executive Officer, President, Secretary and General Counsel of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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 operations of the Company.





September
                6, 2007
            /s/Christopher
                J. RyanChristopher
                J. RyanChief
                Executive Officer, President,and
                General Counsel


29
p130270.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0270

Focus Ready Draft 3/18/2013

ENGINEER: Hall \ EV/DDH

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: The Dow Chemical Company

 

 

 

Page 1
p130270.eng

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (02/20/2013):

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P3B1T1

Health: 1

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb.)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: NR

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0270

Page 2
p130270.eng

 

 

Page 3
p130270.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0270

 

Page 4
p130270.eng

De

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0270

 

Page 5
Flight Log

Pre-flight

inspection

☐ Yes ☐ No

Comment

Comment:

Date: Time: Location:

Circle Circle Comment

Weather Good Fair

Visibility Good Fair

Wind Speed Low Medium

Proximity to

airport:

Airport

Notified?

☐ Yes ☐ No

Date: Time:

Phone number: Contact Name:

Proximity to medium traffic road:

Proximity to heavily traveled roadway road:

Proximity to congested population:

Approximate flight duration:

Safety Concerns:

Additional Comments:

Signature _______________________
###### Editorial Note on Part 705

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 705 appear at 84 FR 1607, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 705.8 Urgency.

On an emergency basis, subject to funds availability, NCUA may consider a funding request from a Qualifying Credit Union experiencing an unplanned or unexpected expense that the Qualifying Credit Union is unable to meet with its own resources. The Qualifying Credit Union must demonstrate a compelling need for immediate assistance without which its continued operations would be threatened or severely disrupted. NCUA, in its discretion, will determine whether the situation constitutes an emergency and if the Qualifying Credit Union is required to submit any additional information to show why the funds are needed on an emergency basis. NCUA will determine and substantiate any reason to expedite funding in such case. Requests for loans or technical assistance grants under this section will be addressed on an ongoing basis and are outside the scope of the related Notice of Funding Opportunity. Technical assistance grants and loans provided on this basis must still demonstrate a purpose consistent with the goals of the Fund. Loans and technical assistance grants made under this section are not anticipated to be a regular source of funding for any Qualifying Credit Unions.

[76 FR 67587, Nov. 2, 2011. Redesignated at 81 FR 85112, Nov. 25, 2016]
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT (10)(b)

                         OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY

<PAGE>

                [Transamerica Life Insurance Company Letterhead]

April 1, 2003

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001

Re:   Transamerica Preferred Advantage
      Separate Account VA L
      Registration on Form N-4

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Transamerica Preferred Advantage Variable
Annuity policies are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)   the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the policies,

(2)   the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
      policies,

(3)   the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
      of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides for a
      reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)   Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)  Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iii) Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(iv)  Surrender Charges

(v)   Any applicable rider fees or charges

<PAGE>

Transamerica Life Insurance Company
April 1, 2003
Page 2

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (v)
is established in the pricing of the Transamerica Preferred Advantage Variable
Annuity, to achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the
range of industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products.

Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the registration statement.

  /s/ R. Gene Hauser
-----------------------------------------
R. Gene Hauser
Associate Actuary
Transamerica Life Insurance Company
#### § 1240.111 Release

Under subsection 20136(c) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, no award will be made to an applicant unless the applicant submits a duly executed release, in a form specified by the Administrator, of all claims the applicant may have to receive any compensation (other than the award recommended) from the United States Government for use of the contribution or any element thereof at any time by or on behalf of the United States, or by or on behalf of any foreign government pursuant to any existing or future treaty or agreement with the United States, within the United States, or at any other place.

[77 FR 27367, May 10, 2012]
§ 135.158 Pitot heat indication systems. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, after April 12, 1981, no person may operate a transport category airplane equipped with a flight instrument pitot heating system unless the airplane is also equipped with an operable pitot heat indication system that complies with § 25.1326 of this chapter in effect on April 12, 1978.
( b ) A certificate holder may obtain an extension of the April 12, 1981, compliance date specified in paragraph (a) of this section, but not beyond April 12, 1983, from the Executive Director, Flight Standards Service if the certificate holder— ( 1 ) Shows that due to circumstances beyond its control it cannot comply by the specified compliance date; and
( 2 ) Submits by the specified compliance date a schedule for compliance, acceptable to the Executive Director, indicating that compliance will be achieved at the earliest practicable date.
[Doc. No. 18094, Amdt. 135-17, 46 FR 48306, Aug. 31, 1981, as amended by Amdt. 135-33, 54 FR 39294, Sept. 25, 1989; Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 135-139, 83 FR 9175, Mar. 5, 2018]
#### C. S. Burdsall & Co. *v.*Chrisfield & Peale.

When parties exchange their *memorandum,*checks for mutual accommodation, no right of action accrues in behalf of one against the other, until the plaintiff has paid the check given by him; while it is outstanding and unpaid, the relation between them is merely that of principal and surety.

Special Term. — Action upon a bank check. The facts sufficiently appear in the decision.

*Corwine, Hayes &*Rogers, for plaintiff.

*Collins & Herron,*for defendants.

Storer, J.

The petitioner claims to recover the amount of a check drawn by defendants for $1,200, on T. S. Goodman & Co., dated Sept. 15, 1854, and payable to plaintiffs or order. *52The answer sets up the fact, that the check, described in the petition was a memorandum, only given to plaintiffs as an exchange for asimilar check, loaned by them to defendants, and the only .consideration existing between the parties was that exchange and accommodation. There is no evidence that the check has ever been presented to the drawees, or that 'payment has been refused, but as that defense is not relied ons we shall assume that the necessary proof might have been made, and, by consent, has been dispensed with. Testimony has been taken which sustains the allegations of the answer; and the additional fact appears, that the check, drawn by the plaintiff', in favor of the defendants, was pledged, by Chris-field, with John Young, as security for an advance of money. The plaintiffs have never paid the check, nor been called on by legal process to pay it. Their liability to discharge it is the only ground on which a recovery, in this case, is asked.

The question seems to us to be plain; if the plaintiffs held the check sued upon, to represent that loaned by them, for a similar sum, to the defendants, it is nothing more than a guaranty, that the defendants will protect the plaintiffs from ultimate loss, and must be governed by the same rule that would apply to the ordinary case of principal and surety. We know of no principle that would authorize the surety upon ordinary mercantile contracts to sue the principal, until he has discharged the debt. The mere fact of liability is not sufficient; if it was, how would the surety be protected if the principal should be permitted to recover the money, and afterward neglect, or refuse, or be unable, to discharge the original debt ? certainly the surety ought not to be required to pay it the second time. Burge on Suretyship, B. 4, C. 1.851.

In this case, it is admitted that the plaintiffs and defendants are both insolvent. Neither have suffered by the exchange of these checks, which are still unpaid, and must have been understood, at the time, to be accommodation checks only. "We can find no equity for the plaintiffs, and the law is clearly with the defendants.

Judgment for defendants.
#### § 137.37 Manner of dispensing.

No persons may dispense, or cause to be dispensed, from an aircraft, any material or substance in a manner that creates a hazard to persons or property on the surface.

[Doc. No. 1464, 30 FR 8106, June 24, 1965, as amended by Amdt. 137-3, 33 FR 9601, July 2, 1968]
§ 1215.102 Definitions. ( a ) *User.* Any non-U.S. Government representative or entity that enters into an agreement with NASA to use TDRSS services.
( b ) *TDRSS.* TDRSS, including Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS), WSC, GRGT, and the necessary TDRSS operational areas, interface devices, and NASA communication circuits that unify the above into a functioning system. It specifically excludes the user ground system/TDRSS interface.
( c ) *Bit stream.* The electronic signals acquired by TDRSS from the user craft or the user-generated input commands for transmission to the user craft.
( d ) *Scheduling service period.* One scheduled contact utilizing a single TDRS, whereby the user, by requesting service, is allotted a block of time for operations between the user satellite and TDRSS.
[77 FR 6952, Feb. 10, 2012]
§ 119.65 Management personnel required for operations conducted under part 121 of this chapter. ( a ) Each certificate holder must have sufficient qualified management and technical personnel to ensure the highest degree of safety in its operations. The certificate holder must have qualified personnel serving full-time in the following or equivalent positions: ( 1 ) Director of Safety.
( 2 ) Director of Operations.
( 3 ) Chief Pilot for each category of aircraft the certificate holder uses, as listed in § 61.5(b)(1) of this chapter.
( 4 ) Director of Maintenance.
( 5 ) Chief Inspector.
( b ) The Administrator may approve positions or numbers of positions other than those listed in paragraph (a) of this section for a particular operation if the certificate holder shows that it can perform the operation with the highest degree of safety under the direction of fewer or different categories of management personnel due to— ( 1 ) The kind of operation involved;
( 2 ) The number and type of aircraft used; and
( 3 ) The area of operations.
( c ) The title of the positions required under paragraph (a) of this section or the title and number of equivalent positions approved under paragraph (b) of this section shall be set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications.
( d ) The individuals who serve in the positions required or approved under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and anyone in a position to exercise control over operations conducted under the operating certificate must— ( 1 ) Be qualified through training, experience, and expertise;
( 2 ) To the extent of their responsibilities, have a full understanding of the following materials with respect to the certificate holder's operation— ( i ) Aviation safety standards and safe operating practices;
( ii ) 14 CFR Chapter I (Federal Aviation Regulations);
( iii ) The certificate holder's operations specifications;
( iv ) All appropriate maintenance and airworthiness requirements of this chapter (e.g., parts 1, 21, 23, 25, 43, 45, 47, 65, 91, and 121 of this chapter); and
( v ) The manual required by § 121.133 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) Discharge their duties to meet applicable legal requirements and to maintain safe operations.
( e ) Each certificate holder must: ( 1 ) State in the general policy provisions of the manual required by § 121.133 of this chapter, the duties, responsibilities, and authority of personnel required under paragraph (a) of this section;
( 2 ) List in the manual the names and business addresses of the individuals assigned to those positions; and
( 3 ) Notify the responsible Flight Standards office within 10 days of any change in personnel or any vacancy in any position listed.
[Docket No. 28154, 60 FR 65913, Dec. 20, 1995, as amended by Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 119-19, 83 FR 9172, Mar. 5, 2018; Docket No. FAA-2022-1563; Amdt. No. 119-20, 88 FR 48089, July 26, 2023]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             290
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                       243
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,575
<PP&E>                                           4,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,071
<BONDS>                                            425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,689
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,943
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,619
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    18
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  62
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    157
<INCOME-TAX>                                        63
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 94
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        94
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
§ 1264.105 Prerequisites for issuing a complaint. ( a ) The reviewing official may issue a complaint under § 1264.106 only if— ( 1 ) The Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in a written statement described in 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1); and
( 2 ) In the case of allegations of liability under § 1264.102(a) with respect to a claim, the reviewing official determines that, with respect to such claim or a group of related claims submitted at the same time such claim is submitted (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section), the amount of money or the value of property or services demanded or requested in violation of § 1264.102(a) does not exceed $150,000.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, a related group of claims submitted at the same time shall include only those claims arising from the same transaction (e.g., grant, loan, application, or contract) that are submitted simultaneously as part of a single request, demand, or submission.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the reviewing official's authority to join in a single complaint against a person claims that are unrelated or were not submitted simultaneously, regardless of the amount of money or the value of property or services demanded or requested.
Exhibit 32.2
                  Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, William S. Hummers III, the Executive Vice President and Principal Financial
Officer of The South Financial Group, Inc. ("TSFG") certify that to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2004 of TSFG (the "Report"):

     (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 operations of
     TSFG.


/s/ William S. Hummers III
-------------------------------------
William S. Hummers III
Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer
The South Financial Group, Inc.
November 8, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to The South Financial Group, Inc.
and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 14, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130099 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff, Justices Counter-Defendant-Appellant,

v SC: 130099 COA: 262759 Oakland CC: 04-056953-CZ PRO-SEAL SERVICE GROUP, INC., d/b/a PRO-SEAL, INC., Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff-Appellee, and

SETH SHORT, RANDY QUINCY,

FLOWSERVE CORPOR ATION, and FLOWSERVE MANAGEMENT COMPANY,

Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 1, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take ot her peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties sha ll be prepared to address at oral argument: (1) whether Flowserve's complaint alleged an advertis ing injury within the meaning of the commercial general liability po licy that Citizens Insurance Co mpany issued to Pro-Seal, Inc, and (2) if so, wheth er Citizens was relieved of its duty to defend Pro-Seal by operation of the policy exclusion for actions taken with knowledge that an advertising injury would result. The parties may file suppl emental briefs within 56 days of the date of this order, but they shou ld avoid submitting a mere restat ement of the arguments made in their application papers.

t0411 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.

April 14, 2006

Clerk
#### Joe WARREN et ux *v.*Debbie WARREN

5-6013

484 S.W. 2d 880

Opinion delivered October *2,*1972

*Dede W. Finley,*for appellants.

*John Harris,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellants bought a $3,500 automobile for their young son Stanley and put the title in his name, retaining possession of the certificate of title. A few months later Stanley, then 23, married the appellee, then 16, with her mother’s consent. During the brief marriage, which ended within a few days without consummation, Stanley took the certificate of title from his mother’s papers and gave the car to his bride, with the title being reissued in her name. The appellants do not question their son’s intention to give the automobile to his wife.

After the appellee filed an action for divorce the appellants brought this suit to recover the car. Stanley’s mother testified that the title to the vehicle was put in the son’s name “for insurance purposes,” to protect the elder Warren from being responsible. Mrs. Warren stated that her son was allowed to treat the car as his own, but he was not to have any authority to dispose of it. Mr. Warren did not testify.

The chancellor refused to disturb the appellee’s ownership, holding that as between the two couples the car *135belonged to Stanley at the time he gave it to his wife. We do not find the chancellor’s decision to be against the weight of the evidence. The appellants came into a court of equity in the manifestly inconsistent position of having sought on the one hand to retain the real ownership of the automobile while endeavoring on the other to be ready to defraud innocent members of the public by making it appear that their financially irresponsible son was in fact the owner. There is no sound reason for a court of conscience to rescue the appellants from a predicament of their own making. See *McClure*v. *McClure,*220 Ark. 312, 247 S.W. 2d 466 (1952).

Affirmed.