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

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

 

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

 

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of NEON Systems, Inc, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark J. Cresswell, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, asadopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| November 15, 2004                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                 |
| /s/ Mark J. Cresswell                                                |   |
| Mark J. Cresswell                                                    |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer (principal executive officer) |
|                                                                 |
|                                                                 |   |
|                                                                      |  |  |

 

----
§ 25.237 Wind velocities. ( a ) For land planes and amphibians, the following applies: ( 1 ) A 90-degree cross component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for takeoff and landing, must be established for dry runways and must be at least 20 knots or 0.2 VSR0, whichever is greater, except that it need not exceed 25 knots.
( 2 ) The crosswind component for takeoff established without ice accretions is valid in icing conditions.
( 3 ) The landing crosswind component must be established for: ( i ) Non-icing conditions, and
( ii ) Icing conditions with the most critical of the landing ice accretion(s) defined in Appendices C and O of this part, as applicable, in accordance with § 25.21(g).
( b ) For seaplanes and amphibians, the following applies: ( 1 ) A 90-degree cross component of wind velocity, up to which takeoff and landing is safe under all water conditions that may reasonably be expected in normal operation, must be established and must be at least 20 knots or 0.2 V*SR* 0, whichever is greater, except that it need not exceed 25 knots.
( 2 ) A wind velocity, for which taxiing is safe in any direction under all water conditions that may reasonably be expected in normal operation, must be established and must be at least 20 knots or 0.2 V*SR0*, whichever is greater, except that it need not exceed 25 knots.
[Amdt. 25-42, 43 FR 2322, Jan. 16, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 25-108, 67 FR 70827, Nov. 26, 2002; Amdt. 25-121, 72 FR 44668, Aug. 8, 2007; Amdt. 25-140, 79 FR 65525, Nov. 4, 2014]
§ 33.88 Engine overtemperature test. ( a ) Each engine must run for 5 minutes at maximum permissible rpm with the gas temperature at least 75 °F (42 °C) higher than the maximum rating's steady-state operating limit, excluding maximum values of rpm and gas temperature associated with the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings. Following this run, the turbine assembly must be within serviceable limits.
( b ) In addition to the test requirements in paragraph (a) of this section, each engine for which 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings are desired, that incorporates a means for automatic temperature control within its operating limitations in accordance with § 33.28(k), must run for a period of 4 minutes at the maximum power-on rpm with the gas temperature at least 35 °F (19 °C) higher than the maximum operating limit at 30-second OEI rating. Following this run, the turbine assembly may exhibit distress beyond the limits for an overtemperature condition provided the engine is shown by analysis or test, as found necessary by the FAA, to maintain the integrity of the turbine assembly.
( c ) A separate test vehicle may be used for each test condition.
[Doc. No. 26019, 61 FR 31329, June 19, 1996, as amended by Amdt. 33-25, 73 FR 48124, Aug. 18, 2008; Amdt. 33-26, 73 FR 48285, Aug. 19, 2008]
§ 67.211 Cardiovascular. Cardiovascular standards for a second-class medical certificate are no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following: ( a ) Myocardial infarction;
( b ) Angina pectoris;
( c ) Coronary heart disease that has required treatment or, if untreated, that has been symptomatic or clinically significant;
( d ) Cardiac valve replacement;
( e ) Permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation; or
( f ) Heart replacement.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00446

- CV
Dean Springer and Integrity Financial Group, Inc. v. Lydia Tummel, et. al.

On a ppeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 0034

- 13

- F

- 2

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certifi ed below for observance. December 1, 2016
**Exhibit99.3**

 

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 theQuarterly Report of MEEMIC Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christine C. Schmitt, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Christine C. Schmitt   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Christine C. Schmitt       |
| Chief Financial****Officer |
|                       |
| August 14, 2002            |

 

----
#### § 101.29 Procedure respecting election conducted without hearing.

If the regional director determines that the case is an appropriate one for election without formal hearing, an election is conducted as quickly as possible among the employees and upon the conclusion of the election the regional director makes available to the parties a tally of ballots. The parties, however, have an opportunity to make appropriate challenges and objections to the conduct of the election and they have the same rights, and the same procedure is followed, with respect to objections to the conduct of the election and challenged ballots, as is described in subpart C of 29 CFR part 102 and the statement of the general course in connection with the postelection procedures in representation cases under Section 9(c) of the Act, except that no provision is made for a runoff election. If no such objections are filed within 7 days and if the challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the regional director issues to the parties a certification of the results of the election, with the same force and effect as if issued by the Board.

[79 FR 74477, Dec. 15, 2014]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12041]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Reproduction Act of 1993--Rotorcraft Technology Association, Inc. 
(``RITA'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 24, 1999, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Rotorcraft Technology 
Association, Inc. (``RITA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Arizona State 
University, Tempe, AZ; Ohio Aerospace Institute, Cleveland, OH; 
University of California, Los Angeles, CA; University of Texas at 
Arlington, Arlington, TX; and West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 
have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Rotorcraft Technology Association, 
Inc. (``RITA'') intends to file additional written notification 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 28, 1995, Rotorcraft Technology Association, Inc. 
(``RITA'') filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of 
the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 3, 1996 (61 FR 
14817).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 7, 
1999. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on March 19, 1999 (64 FR 13605).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-12041 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. ( a ) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
( b ) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
( c ) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005)
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4580 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4580

   To reauthorize the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize funding to 
 conduct a national training program for State and local prosecutors''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2020

  Mrs. Loeffler (for herself and Mr. Cotton) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To reauthorize the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize funding to 
 conduct a national training program for State and local prosecutors''.

    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 ``Training our Prosecutors Act''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR STATE AND LOCAL PROSECUTORS.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to authorize funding to conduct a 
national training program for State and local prosecutors'', approved 
October 15, 2008 (34 U.S.C. 10121 note), is amended--
            (1) in section 1, by inserting ``that regularly provides 
        training and technical assistance to State and local 
        prosecutors nationwide'' after ``national nonprofit'';
            (2) in section 2, by inserting ``preventing and prosecuting 
        violent crimes and crimes involving property destruction,'' 
        after ``staff training,''; and
            (3) in section 3--
                    (A) by striking ``$4,750,000'' and inserting 
                ``$5,000,000''; and
                    (B) by striking ``2009 through 2012'' and inserting 
                ``2021 through 2024''.
                                 <all>
```
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN YAGMAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC;

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE

HOLDINGS, INC.; NATIONSTAR

CAPITAL CORPORATION; TEN

UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-55693

D.C. No. 

2:16-cv-08902-FMO-JC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 6, 2019** 

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

FILED

NOV 08 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Yagman filed suit against Nationstar Mortgage,

LLC alleging that the assignment of his loan to a securitized trust was void. He

now appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claim without leave to amend. 

We affirm.

Yagman’s claim is barred by res judicata. Res judicata applies when a court

has reached a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit involving the same

claims and parties as a later suit. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d

985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). In Yagman v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 699 Fed.

App’x 634 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Yagman I”), a case involving the same claims and

parties, we upheld the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend of

Yagman’s claim. This became a final judgment.

Yagman attempts to distinguish his claim from that in Yagman I, arguing

that in this suit, he is challenging only those collection attempts that occurred after

the complaint in Yagman I was filed. This argument fails, because res judicata bars

claims based on new factual events when those events are part of the same ongoing

practice. Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 673 F.3d 914,

918–19 (9th Cir. 2012).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Yagman’s motion to

amend his complaint. As in Yagman I, amendment would have been futile,

2
because even if Yagman were permitted to amend his complaint, he could not

solve the procedural defects we identified in Yagman I. 699 Fed. App’x at 635; see

DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing futility

as a reason to deny leave to amend).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Yagman’s motion to

impose sanctions, because Yagman is unable to establish that Nationstar’s

attorneys were reckless or acted in bad faith in bringing a motion to dismiss for

inadequate service of process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927; Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d

989, 993 (9th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

3
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2002 of ServiceWare Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Kent
Heyman, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.


                                   /s/ KENT HEYMAN
                              --------------------------------------------------

                              Kent Heyman, President and Chief Executive Officer

                              March 27, 2003
## HART SALES Corp

Mr. Dennis DeVeany ChiefEAS & Domestic Analysis Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington DC 20590 . :;

! i Monday, May 20, 2013 /

Subject: Proposal to provide ESA air service to Adak, AKDocket DOT-OST-2000-8556 Mr. DeVany, I am writing you to outline our position with regards to Alaska Airlines and the essential services agreement for Adak, Alaska. Our company operates a division within the city ofAdak called Adak-Fresh. We are a purchaser and primary processor ofAlaskan ground fish. Overthe past six weeks we have shipped approximately 40,000 lbs offreight into Adak andjustover 35,000 lbs offresh fish out ofAdak. Moving forward we estimate shipping in excess of300,000 lbs offresh fish prior to November 2013. Alaska Airlines is essential to the success ofAdak-Fresh. Jet service twice weekly allows us to move our perishable product to the market in a timely fashion. The Alaska Airlines staffhave accommodated our needs for this season by confirming a 737 Combi service starting next month. Respectfully I urge The Department ofTransport to support Alaska Airlines with the Essential Air Services to Adak island. Simply put, without the Jet services ofAlaska Airlines to the lower 48 markets I will have to cease our operation on Adak island. Should you have any questions or concerns I would be pleased to address thempromptly.

President HART SALES Corp.

HART SALES Corp. Victoria British Columbia tel250-388-7639

## fx 250-388-7649 vv'WW.hartsc.com
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.41 Duration and return of Certificate. ( a ) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3, issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless registration has ended by reason of having been revoked, canceled, expired, or the ownership is transferred, until the date upon which one of the following events occurs: ( 1 ) Subject to the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft when applicable, the aircraft is registered under the laws of a foreign country.
( 2 ) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped.
( 3 ) The holder of the certificate loses his U.S. citizenship.
( 4 ) 30 days have elapsed since the death of the holder of the certificate.
( 5 ) The owner, if an individual who is not a citizen of the United States, loses status as a resident alien, unless that person becomes a citizen of the United States at the same time.
( 6 ) If the owner is a corporation other than a corporation which is a citizen of the United States— ( i ) The corporation ceases to be lawfully organized and doing business under the laws of the United States or any State thereof; or
( ii ) A period described in § 47.9(b) ends and the aircraft was not based and primarily used in the United States during that period.
( 7 ) If the trustee in whose name the aircraft is registered— ( i ) Loses U.S. citizenship;
( ii ) Loses status as a resident alien and does not become a citizen of the United States at the same time; or
( iii ) In any manner ceases to act as trustee and is not immediately replaced by another who meets the requirements of § 47.7(c).
( b ) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration, with the reverse side completed, must be returned to the Registry— ( 1 ) Within 21 days in the case of registration under the laws of a foreign country, by the person who was the owner of the aircraft before foreign registration;
( 2 ) Within 60 days after the death of the holder of the certificate, by the administrator or executor of his estate, or by his heir-at-law if no administrator or executor has been or is to be appointed; or
( 3 ) Within 21 days of the termination of the registration, by the holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in all other cases mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section, except in the case of expired certificates, the holder must destroy the expired certificate.
( 4 ) If the certificate is not available for return, as directed in paragraph (b) of this section, a statement describing the aircraft and stating the reason the certificate is not available must be submitted to the Registry within the time required by paragraph (b) of this section.
[Doc. No. 7190, 31 FR 4495, Mar. 17, 1966; 31 FR 5483, Apr. 7, 1966, as amended by Amdt. 47-20, 44 FR 61940, Oct. 29, 1979; Amdt. 47-28, 73 FR 10667, Feb. 28, 2008; Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41982, July 20, 2010]
~;rom: 

To:·--

Subject: , 

Date: 

1Qhn Peterson 

- EAS (QSJ] 

attn:Dennis J. Devany ref. # Docket Dot-ost-1996-2009 

Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:10:21 AM 

To whom it may concern:. 

I live in Icy Bay Alaska year round, and the EAS flight service is very 

important to me. 

Let me introduce myself. My name is John Peterson and I live at and 

care take the Icy Bay lodge year round, summer and winter. Beside the 

lodge I also check and do emergency maintenance on the transmitter 

for Alaska Marine Exchange based in Juneau. Last winter one of the 

battery chargers went out on the system. I was contacted about the 

low voltage, found the problem, ordered what was needed and the EAS 

flight brought out what was needed and I got it repaired and up and 

running in a matter of a few days instead of at least a week or more. 

Now this might not sound that important to most- people but if Alaska 

Marine Exchange had been in operation when the Exxon Valdez hit 

Bligh reef, it most likely wouldn't have happened. 

Besides the lodge and AK Marine Exchange's transmitter site I also 

send in a local weather report to the year round air taxi in Yakutat. The 

weather here in Icy Bay and this part of the Gulf of Alaska can be very 

different than what is around it, sometimes better sometimes worse. 

I have also been asked by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to 

notify them of anything unusual tbat I see or find out here, same with 

the Yakutat police and the State Troopers when there was one 

stationed rn Yakutat. 

Last winter I found a dead sea otter here on the beach. I contacted 

AKF&G and they put in contact with the right people in FWS to send 

the body to. With the seal die off up north last winter it was a concern 

of theirs. 

Yes, I do care take the lodge here, but I am also the eyes, ears and 

hands for several other organizations. Having the EAS flights available 

to me not only makes life easier for me, but much safer also. 

Thank you for your time. 
Sincerely; 

John T. Peterson 

Icy Bay, Alaska 

·.,.. '' •. ~ I'" •