alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**Certification
      by**


**pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**


**as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**







In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of National Lampoon, Inc and Subsidiaries
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification
      is
      an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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 result of operations of the Company
              for the periods reflected therein.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Date:
      March 22, 2006


/s/
      Daniel S. Laikin


Daniel
      S.
      Laikin, Chief Executive Officer








Date:
      March 22, 2006


/s/
      Douglas S. Bennett


Douglas
      S. Bennett, President and Chief Financial Officer
§ 29.1387 Position light system dihedral angles. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, each forward and rear position light must, as installed, show unbroken light within the dihedral angles described in this section.
( b ) Dihedral angle *L* (left) is formed by two intersecting vertical planes, the first parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotorcraft, and the other at 110 degrees to the left of the first, as viewed when looking forward along the longitudinal axis.
( c ) Dihedral angle *R* (right) is formed by two intersecting vertical planes, the first parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotorcraft, and the other at 110 degrees to the right of the first, as viewed when looking forward along the longitudinal axis.
( d ) Dihedral angle *A* (aft) is formed by two intersecting vertical planes making angles of 70 degrees to the right and to the left, respectively, to a vertical plane passing through the longitudinal axis, as viewed when looking aft along the longitudinal axis.
( e ) If the rear position light, when mounted as far aft as practicable in accordance with § 29.1385(c), cannot show unbroken light within dihedral angle A (as defined in paragraph (d) of this section), a solid angle or angles of obstructed visibility totaling not more than 0.04 steradians is allowable within that dihedral angle, if such solid angle is within a cone whose apex is at the rear position light and whose elements make an angle of 30° with a vertical line passing through the rear position light.
(49 U.S.C. 1655(c))
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-9, 36 FR 21279, Nov. 5, 1971]
Submitted on briefs April 14,

affirmed May 16,

rehearing denied June 29, 1927.

#### OLGA WILLIAMSON *v.*C. F. RANDOLPH et al.

(256 Pac. 186.)

Appeal and Error — In Absence of Bill of Exceptions and Transcript of Testimony, Trial Court’s Bindings, Held Conclusive.

Where the record presents no bill of exceptions and no transcript of testimony, the findings of the trial court are conclusive upon questions of fact.

Appeal and Error, 4 C. J., p. 186, n. 60, 61, p. 416, n. 3, p. 547, n. 86, p. 548, n. 91.

From Multnomah: George G. Bingham, Judge.

In Banc.

This is an appeal from an action upon a promissory note which was in the usual form, and in which the defense was lack of consideration. There were *591findings and a judgment for the plaintiff and the defendants Eschman, Sorich and Parsons appeal.

*590See 2 R. C. L. 135.

*591Aeeirmed. Rehearing Denied.

For appellants there was a brief over the name of *Messrs. Lord & Moulton.*

For respondent there was a brief over the name of *Messrs. McGuirJc & Schneider.*

McBRIDE, J.

The questions raised on this appeal are entirely questions of fact which are discussed at some length in the briefs of both parties; but there is no bill of exceptions and no transcript of testimony, and, in that condition of the record, the findings of the Circuit Court are conclusive upon these questions and the judgment is affirmed.

Aeeirmed. Rehearing Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 88 (Friday, May 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11267]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Advanced Computational Infrastructure & 
Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Advanced Computational 
Infrastructure & Research (#1185).
    Date and Time: May 26, 2000, 8:30am-5:00pm.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 
320, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Charles H. Koelbel, Program Director, 
Advanced Computational Research Program, Suite 1122, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 
(703) 306-1962.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide recommendations and advice 
concerning Visualization & Data Management Proposals submitted to 
NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Proposals in the Advanced 
Computational Research Program as part of the selection process for 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 2, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-11267 Filed 5-04-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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


         In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Pacific CMA,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Alfred
Lam, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.
1350, as added by ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

         (b)      The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of and for the period  covered by
                  the Report.


                                    By: /s/Alfred Lam
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                          Alfred Lam, Chief Executive Officer


Date:    August 13, 2004
#### § 34.20 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all aircraft gas turbine engines of the classes specified beginning on the dates specified in § 34.21.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2465-1 Filed:02/12/18 Entered:02/12/18 11:35:51 Desc:

Appendix Receipt Page 1 of 1
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 13, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14040

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 06-20596-CR-ASG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CESAR NAHUM MONTUFAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(May 13, 2009)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Elio Vazquez, appointed counsel for Cesar Nahum Montufar in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.
1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Montufar’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
§ 212.4 Authorized charter types. Certificated and foreign air carriers may conduct the following charter types, subject to the provisions of this part: ( a ) Affinity (pro rata) charters.
( b ) Single entity charters, including: ( 1 ) Wet leases involving the carriage of passengers and/or cargo, provided, that the wet lessee holds appropriate economic authority from the Department to conduct the proposed operations; and
( 2 ) Charters pursuant to contracts with the Department of Defense, provided, that foreign air carriers may conduct charters for the Department of Defense only to the extent that such operations are consistent with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40118.
( c ) Mixed charters.
( d ) Gambling junket charters.
( e ) Public Charters in accordance with part 380 of this chapter (including operations by educational institutions as defined in that part).
( f ) Overseas military personnel charters in accordance with part 372 of this chapter.
( g ) Cargo charters.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GST
NETWORK'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             370,159,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,151,000
<BONDS>                                    355,587,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (12,579,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               370,159,000
<SALES>                                     42,222,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,222,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          36,759,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,463,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                14,355,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,892,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,892,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


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








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Gateway International Holdings, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
      “Report”), I, Timothy D. Consalvi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.






Dated:November
                12,2008
            /s/
                Timothy D. ConsalviBy:
                Timothy D. ConsalviIts:
                Chief Executive Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Gateway International Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Gateway
      International Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 29.49 Performance at minimum operating speed. ( a ) For each Category A helicopter, the hovering performance must be determined over the ranges of weight, altitude, and temperature for which takeoff data are scheduled— ( 1 ) With not more than takeoff power;
( 2 ) With the landing gear extended; and
( 3 ) At a height consistent with the procedure used in establishing the takeoff, climbout, and rejected takeoff paths.
( b ) For each Category B helicopter, the hovering performance must be determined over the ranges of weight, altitude, and temperature for which certification is requested, with— ( 1 ) Takeoff power;
( 2 ) The landing gear extended; and
( 3 ) The helicopter in ground effect at a height consistent with normal takeoff procedures.
( c ) For each helicopter, the out-of-ground effect hovering performance must be determined over the ranges of weight, altitude, and temperature for which certification is requested with takeoff power.
( d ) For rotorcraft other than helicopters, the steady rate of climb at the minimum operating speed must be determined over the ranges of weight, altitude, and temperature for which certification is requested with— ( 1 ) Takeoff power; and
( 2 ) The landing gear extended.
[Doc. No. 24802, 61 FR 21898, May 10, 1996; 61 FR 33963, July 1, 1996]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24480-3 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/09/23 14:16:19 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit 9 Minute Page 1 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24480-3 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/09/23 14:16:19 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit 9 Minute Page 2 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24480-3 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/09/23 14:16:19 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit 9 Minute Page 3 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24480-3 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/09/23 14:16:19 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit 9 Minute Page 4 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24480-3 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/09/23 14:16:19 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit 9 Minute Page 5 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24480-3 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/09/23 14:16:19 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit 9 Minute Page 6 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24480-3 Filed:06/09/23 Entered:06/09/23 14:16:19 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit 9 Minute Page 7 of 7
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0481 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-003-AD

Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 

206L-4, and 407 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 265 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the emergency floatation gear 

to deploy during an emergency event.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $2 for the inspection

$165 for the installation

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection)

(1 work-hour x $85/workhour for the installation)

$85

$85

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $87 for the inspection

$250 for the installation

Total US Fleet Cost $23,055 for the inspection

$89,305 for the installation

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Venessa Stiger
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-59825, effective July 24, 1998, File No.
333-66331, effective October 29, 1998, Amendment No. 1 thereto dated February
22, 1999, File No. 333-76527, effective April 19, 1999, File No. 333-79919,
effective June 3, 1999 and File No. 333-31330, effective February 29, 2000) of
BindView Development Corporation of our report dated January 30, 2003 relating
to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of BindView
Development Corporation, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the
reference to us under the heading "Selected Financial Data" in such Form 10-K.


                                            /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
                                            ------------------------------
                                            PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Houston, Texas
March 31, 2003
#### In the Matter of the Claim of William Davidowicz, Respondent, against Harold D. Klipstein as Trustee of Dearborn Manufacturing Corporation, Bankrupt Appellant. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

(Argued September 30, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*544
      *Harold H. Levin*for appellant.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Leon Freedman*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 27.801 Ditching. ( a ) If certification with ditching provisions is requested, the rotorcraft must meet the requirements of this section and §§ 27.807(d), 27.1411 and 27.1415.
( b ) Each practicable design measure, compatible with the general characteristics of the rotorcraft, must be taken to minimize the probability that in an emergency landing on water, the behavior of the rotorcraft would cause immediate injury to the occupants or would make it impossible for them to escape.
( c ) The probable behavior of the rotorcraft in a water landing must be investigated by model tests or by comparison with rotorcraft of similar configuration for which the ditching characteristics are known. Scoops, flaps, projections, and any other factor likely to affect the hydrodynamic characteristics of the rotorcraft must be considered.
( d ) It must be shown that, under reasonably probable water conditions, the flotation time and trim of the rotorcraft will allow the occupants to leave the rotorcraft and enter the life rafts required by § 27.1415. If compliance with this provision is shown by buoyancy and trim computations, appropriate allowances must be made for probable structural damage and leakage. If the rotorcraft has fuel tanks (with fuel jettisoning provisions) that can reasonably be expected to withstand a ditching without leakage, the jettisonable volume of fuel may be considered as buoyancy volume.
( e ) Unless the effects of the collapse of external doors and windows are accounted for in the investigation of the probable behavior of the rotorcraft in a water landing (as prescribed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section), the external doors and windows must be designed to withstand the probable maximum local pressures.
[Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55469, Dec. 20, 1976]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL A. VILLALOBOS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

TOM VILSACK, Secretary, Department

of Agriculture, (Forest Service), Agency,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-17085

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00138-MEJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted April 22, 2015*** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Michael A. Villalobos appeals pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing his employment action alleging retaliation and discrimination. We have

FILED

MAY 01 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

 ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to

comply with a court order); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th

Cir. 1998) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Villalobos’

action without prejudice after Villalobos failed to respond timely to the district

court’s order to show cause regarding his failure to prosecute and meet court

deadlines, despite being warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal. 

See Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (setting forth factors for a district court to

consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order

or failure to prosecute); see also Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 400-01 (a presumption of

prejudice arises from a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or provide a non-frivolous

excuse for delay); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 497 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[D]ismissal

without prejudice is a more easily justified sanction for failure to prosecute.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-17085