alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                 CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-84081) pertaining to the WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. 1999
Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. 1996 Stock
Incentive Compensation Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-43562 and Form S-8 No. 333-62742) both pertaining to the 2000 Stock
Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51196)
pertaining to the 2000 Qiave Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 4,
2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                                 ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Seattle Washington
March 27, 2002
### PD-0378-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 4/9/2015 2:47:09 PM Accepted 4/15/2015 3:28:58 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
§ 243.15 Conflict with foreign laws. ( a ) If a covered airline obtains a waiver in the manner described in this section, it will not be required to solicit, collect or transmit information under this part in countries where such solicitation or collection would violate applicable foreign law, but only to the extent it is established by the carrier that such solicitation or collection would violate applicable foreign law.
( b ) Covered airlines that claim that such solicitation, collection or transmission would violate applicable foreign law in certain foreign countries shall file a petition requesting a waiver in the Docket Facility, on or before October 1, 1998, or on or before beginning service between that country and United States. Such petition shall include copies of the pertinent foreign law, as well as a certified translation, and shall include opinions of appropriate legal experts setting forth the basis for the conclusion that collection would violate such foreign law. Statements from foreign governments on the application of their laws will also be accepted.
( c ) The U.S. Department of Transportation will notify the covered airline of the extent to which it has been satisfactorily established that compliance with all or part of the data collection requirements of this part would constitute a violation of foreign law.
( d ) The U.S. Department of Transportation will maintain an up-to-date listing in OST Docket 98-3305 of countries where adherence to all or a portion of this part is not required because of a conflict with applicable foreign law.
[Doc. No. OST-95-950, 63 FR 8280, Feb. 18, 1998; 63 FR 9413, Feb. 25, 1998]
#### William A. Craig, Appellant, *v.*The New York Central Railroad Company, Respondent.

(Argued October 14, 1936;

decided November 17, 1936.)

*611
      *Jacob Seymour Linett*and *Charles J. Katzenstein*for appellant.

*Kenneth O. Mott-Smith*and *Clive C. Handy*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ.; Crouch, J., taking no part.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0233

_________________ IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: ESTATE OF PAMELA PASTEUR HATCH,

Co - Petitioner and Appellee, and JEFFERY D. HATCH,

Co - Petitioner and A

ppellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Jeffrey D. Hatch, t o all counsel of r eco rd , and to the Honorable Dan Wilson , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 19 2022

10/19/2022
Case Number: DA 22-0233
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP98-18-004]

Take notice that on May 1, 2000, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. tendered for filing Second Revised Sheet No. 6. Iroquois requests that the Commission approve the tariff sheets effective May 1, 2000.

Iroquois states that the revised tariff sheets reflect a negotiated rate between Iroquois and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC for transportation under Rate Schedule RTS beginning on May 1, 2000 through November 1, 2000.

Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies and all parties to the proceeding.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-11631 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
AAM

- 13

- 062

- E November 27, 2012

Exemption No. 10250A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0369

Mr. John Larson

Honey B, LLC

5695 SW Airport Place

Corvallis, OR 97333

Dear Mr. Larson :

This letter is to inform you that we have g ranted your petition to extend Exemption

No. 10250 . It explains the basis for our decision , describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated November 7, 2012 , you p etitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

on behalf of Honey B, LLC ( Honey B ) for an extension of Exemption No. 10250 . That

exemption from p art 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Honey B,

which is operating under separa te parts of 14 CFR, to cover its safety

- sensitive employees

under one drug testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register beca use the requested extension of the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Honey B

.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 102 50

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the

authority provided by 4 9 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701which the FAA Administrator has delegat ed

to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Honey B are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all tim es while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of

the Honey B part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination da te of Exemption No. 10250 to April 30, 2015, unless

so oner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Frederick E. Tilton, M

. D

. Federal Air Surgeon
EXHIBIT 99.1



Certification required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in connection with
the Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002



The undersigned officers, being the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Superior Financial Corp., the issuer respecting the above referenced periodic report filed pursuant to
section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, hereby certify that the above-referenced periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

| |  |                                           |  | 
| |  | ----------------------------------------- |  | 
|
| |  | /s/    C. STANLEY
BAILEY                  |  | 
| |  | C. Stanley Bailey Chief Executive Officer |  | 



March 5, 2003
#### In the Matter of Louis A. Greenwald et al., Individually and on Behalf of Others, Appellants, against James E. Finegan et al., Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

(Submitted September 28, 1936;

decided October 6, 1936.)

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*of counsel), and *Roy P. Monahan*for motion.

*Albert de Roode*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and. ten dollars costs of motion.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned officers of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.
(the Company) hereby certifies to his knowledge that
the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/ A for the
period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Tony Scullion







/s/ Joseph M. Donabauer







*A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been
provided to Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. and will be retained by
Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This written
statement accompanies the Form 10-K/ A to which it relates,
is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
and will not be incorporated by reference into any filing of
Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
§ 300.12 Violations. ( a ) DOT may disqualify, and deny temporarily or permanently the privilege of appearing or practicing before it in any way to, any person who is found by DOT after written notice of charges and hearing to have engaged in unethical or improper professional conduct. Any violation of this part shall be deemed to be such conduct.
( b ) When appropriate in the public interest, DOT may deny any application or other request of a party in a proceeding subject to this part where DOT finds after hearing that such party has, in connection with any DOT proceeding, violated any of the provisions of this part or any of the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 18 of the United States Code. DOT may also condition its further consideration of such party's application or other request or the effectiveness of any order granting such application or other request upon such party's first taking such action as DOT may deem necessary or appropriate to remedy the violation of this part or Chapter 11 of Title 18 of the United States Code to prevent or deter any repetition of such violation. DOT may in addition issue a cease and desist order against any repetition of such or similar misconduct.
( c ) The actions authorized by this section may take place within the framework of the matter during or concerning which the violations occur or in a separate matter, as the DOT decisionmaker or the presiding administrative law judge may direct. A complaint alleging that a violation has occurred in the course of a matter shall be filed in the docket or appropriate public file of such matter unless such complaint is made after DOT's decision of the matter has become final, in which event such complaint may be filed pursuant to part 302, subpart D of the rules of practice. A violation in the course of a matter which may be attributable to or affect the fitness of a party will ordinarily either be disposed of within the framework of such matter or be considered within the context of any subsequent matter involving the interests of such party. Other violations will ordinarily be disposed of in a separate proceeding.
( d ) In the case of any violation of the provisions of this part, the violator may be subject to civil penalties under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46301. The violator may also be subject to a proceeding brought under 49 U.S.C. 46101 before the Department, or sections 46106 through 46108 of the Statute before a U.S. District Court, as the case may be, to compel compliance with civil penalties which have been imposed.
[Doc. No. 82, 50 FR 2380, Jan. 16, 1985, as amended at 60 FR 43528, Aug. 22, 1995; 65 FR 6456, Feb. 9, 2000. Redesignated and amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019]
EXHIBIT 12.1
  Digital
    River, Inc.
  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  Years Ended December 31,2004


2005


2006


2007


2008Income from operations

$
34,762


$
66,713


$
67,595


$
73,914


$
71,571Add: Fixed charges


2,094



3,092



3,240



3,331



3,569Earnings as defined


36,856



69,805



70,835



77,245



75,140Fixed charges

$
2,094


$
3,092


$
3,240


$
3,331


$
3,569Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(1)


17.6



22.6



21.9



23.2



21.1     (1)
    
    The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is computed by dividing
    income (loss) from operations plus fixed charges by fixed
    charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense, amortization
    of debt issuance costs and that portion of rental payments under
    operating leases that we believe to be representative of
    interest.
**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-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 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
      21, 2006
#### § 296.4 Joint loading.

Nothing in this part shall preclude joint loading, meaning the pooling of shipments and their delivery to a direct air carrier for transportation as one shipment, under an agreement between two or more indirect air carriers or foreign indirect air carriers.
§ 31.49 Control systems. ( a ) Each control must operate easily, smoothly, and positively enough to allow proper performance of its functions. Controls must be arranged and identified to provide for convenience of operation and to prevent the possibility of confusion and subsequent inadvertent operation.
( b ) Each control system and operating device must be designed and installed in a manner that will prevent jamming, chafing, or interference from passengers, cargo, or loose objects. Precaution must be taken to prevent foreign objects from jamming the controls. The elements of the control system must have design features or must be distinctly and permanently marked to minimize the possibility of incorrect assembly that could result in malfunctioning of the control system.
( c ) Each balloon using a captive gas as the lifting means must have an automatic valve or appendix that is able to release gas automatically at the rate of at least three percent of the total volume per minute when the balloon is at its maximum operating pressure.
( d ) Each hot air balloon must have a means to allow the controlled release of hot air during flight.
( e ) Each hot air balloon must have a means to indicate the maximum envelope skin temperatures occurring during operation. The indicator must be readily visible to the pilot and marked to indicate the limiting safe temperature of the envelope material. If the markings are on the cover glass of the instrument, there must be provisions to maintain the correct alignment of the glass cover with the face of the dial.
[Doc. No. 1437, 29 FR 8258, July 1, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 31-2, 30 FR 3377, Mar. 13, 1965]
Exhibit 32.3



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,

AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Adrian Goldfarb, Chief Financial Officer 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 my knowledge:



1.

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



2.

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



Date: August 14, 2008



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/  Adrian Goldfarb         
|Adrian Goldfarb              
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Warren D. Knowlton, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Graham Packaging Holdings Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 31, 2008



By:

/s/    WARREN D.
KNOWLTONWarren D. KnowltonChief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
with Respect to the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the Year Ended December 31, 2003 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of UCBH Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge, that:  1.
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and2.
    
    Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. Dated: March 11, 2004
    
    /s/ Thomas S. Wu

Thomas S. Wu
Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 11, 2004
    
    /s/ Jonathan H. Downing

Jonathan H. Downing
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 The certification set forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document of the
Company or the certifying officers.
#### § 420.21 Launch site location review—launch site boundary.

(a) The distance from any proposed launch point to the closest launch site boundary must be at least as great as the debris dispersion radius of the largest launch vehicle type and weight class proposed for the launch point.

(b) For a launch site supporting any expendable launch vehicle, an applicant shall use the largest distance provided by table 2 for the type and weight class of any launch vehicle proposed for the launch point.

(c) For a launch site supporting any reusable launch vehicle, an applicant shall determine the debris dispersion radius that represents the maximum distance from a launch point that debris travels given a worst-case launch vehicle failure in the launch area. An applicant must clearly and convincingly demonstrate the validity of its proposed debris dispersion radius.

Table 2 of [§ 420.21](/on/2024-09-19/title-14/section-420.21)—Minimum Distance From Launch Point to Launch Site Boundary (feet)

| Orbital expendable launch vehicle class | | | Type of suborbital launch vehicle | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Small | Medium | Medium large | Large | Guided | Unguided |
| 7300 | 9300 | 10600 | 13000 | 8000 | 1600 |