alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 18.901 Requirement of authentication or identification. ( a ) *General provision.* The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
( b ) *Illustrations.* By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: ( 1 ) *Testimony of witness with knowledge.* Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.
( 2 ) *Nonexpert opinion on handwriting.* Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of litigation.
( 3 ) *Comparison by judge or expert witness.* Comparison by the judge as trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.
( 4 ) *Distinctive characteristics and the like.* Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.
( 5 ) *Voice identification.* Identification of a voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, by opinion based upon hearing the voice at any time under circumstances connecting it with the alleged speaker.
( 6 ) *Telephone conversations.* Telephone conversations, by evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time by the telephone company to a particular person or business, if— ( i ) In the case of a person, circumstances, including self-identification, show the person answering to be the one called, or
( ii ) In the case of a business, the call was made to a place of business and the conversation related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.
( 7 ) *Public records or reports.* Evidence that a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.
( 8 ) *Ancient documents or data compilation.* Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, ( i ) Is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity,
( ii ) Was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and
( iii ) Has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.
( 9 ) *Process or system.* Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.
( 10 ) *Methods provided by statute or rule.* Any method of authentication or identification provided by Act of Congress, or by rule or regulation prescribed by the administrative agency pursuant to statutory authority, or pursuant to executive order.
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section  906 of the Public  Company  Accounting  Reform and
Investor  Protection  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.  1350,  as adopted),  I, Dianne
Hatton-Ward, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

         1. The Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
December 31, 2005, and to which this  Certification  is attached as Exhibit 99.1
(the "PERIODIC 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period  covered by the Periodic  Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: January 27, 2006


S/ Dianne Hatton-Ward
-------------------------------------------
Dianne Hatton-Ward
CEO & CFO

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Yummies, Inc. and will be retained by Yummies, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request

THIS  CERTIFICATION   ACCOMPANIES  THIS  REPORT  PURSUANT  TO  SS.  906  OF  THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED  "FILED" BY THE  COMPANY FOR
PURPOSES OF SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Frances A. Massey, Respondent, *v.*Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

Submitted April 19, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, without costs. In affirming the judgment of the Appellate Division, without opinion, we do not adopt all that may be said in the opinion of that court. This is well understood by the profession. The question of the defendant’s good faith was not before us on this appeal; therefore, in affirming the judgment of the Appellate Division we did not undertake to approve what was said by that court about good faith. (See 273 N. Y. 531.)
A Vision of Conservation

Together with our surrounding community, 

partners, friends, staff and all those who cherish this 

unique place where desert and water meet...

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge commits to care for, conserve, and enhance the health of 

the Malheur Lake, Blitzen Valley, and Double-O units, including the playas, dunes, marshes, 

rivers, meadows, and ponds that are all part of this landscape. 

We will observe nature and manage in harmony with ecological forces, while recognizing and 

maintaining the Refuge as a key anchor for migratory and breeding waterfowl, waterbirds, 

shorebirds, songbirds, and raptors. 

We will work diligently to improve the health of the land and water, reducing the destructive 

impact of carp and other invasive species, addressing imbalances in floodplain function, 

and restoring the original abundance of fish and wildlife for which Malheur is famous.

We will celebrate and welcome our visitors, noting, and protecting the features that 

draw people again and again—the expansive landscape, the plenitude and diversity 

of wildlife, and the signs of a timeless history.

We will allow and enhance opportunities to experience abundance, solitude, 

and renewal, for people birding, fishing, hunting, and learning on the refuge. 

In respect to our ancestors and their fortitude, we will carefully preserve 

the legacies they left behind on this land.

Collaboration with our neighbors, partners, and friends will be a critical 

cornerstone in our day to day work; we recognize that nature crosses our 

boundaries and we can be successful only in partnership. We recognize that 

our activities are inextricably linked to the health of the local economy. 

We commit to environmental stewardship and sustainable management.

We commit to learn from our efforts, successes, and failures; to be humble about 

what we know; and to continuously strive for greater understanding in our 

stewardship of this remarkable place.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions 

and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimates of future needs. These plans detail program 

planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations, and as such, 

are primarilyused for strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not 

constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, 

or funding for future land acquisition. 

Great white egret

©Ingrid Taylar

We the undersigned hereby indicate our support of the Refuge’s vision for

The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge:

Gary Marshall Tony Svejcar Dustin Johnson

Karen Moon Kenny McDaniel Duncan Evered

Dan Nichols Dan Otley Bruce Taylor

Jay Kerby Matt Little Shannon Hurn

Brad Bales Marty St. Louis Tom Downs

Erica Maltz Barbara Cannady Colby Marshall

Jaime Damon Stacey Davies William Renwick

Amanda Benton
§ 1954.2 Monitoring system. ( a ) To carry out the responsibilities for continuing evaluation of State plans under section 18(f) of the Act, the Assistant Secretary has established a State Program Performance Monitoring System. Evaluation under this monitoring system encompasses both the period before and after a determination has been made under section 18(e) of the Act. The monitoring system is a three phased system designed to assure not only that developmental steps are completed and that the operational plan is, in fact, at least as effective as the Federal program with respect to standards and enforcement, but also to provide a method for continuing review of the implementation of the plan and any modifications thereto to assure compliance with the provisions of the plan during the time the State participates in the cooperative Federal-State program.
( b ) Phase I of the system begins with the initial approval of a State plan and continues until the determination required by section 18(e) of the Act is made. During Phase I, the Assistant Secretary will secure monitoring data to make the following key decisions: ( 1 ) What should be the level of Federal enforcement;
( 2 ) Should plan approval be continued; and
( 3 ) What level of technical assistance is needed by the State to enable it to have an effective program.
( c ) Phase II of the system relates to the determination required by section 18(e) of the Act. The Assistant Secretary must decide, after no less than three years following approval of the plan, whether or not to relinquish Federal authority to the State for issues covered by the occupational safety and health program in the State plan. Phase II will be a comprehensive evaluation of the total State program, drawing upon all information collected during Phase I.
( d ) Phase III of the system begins after an affirmative determination has been made under section 18(e) of the Act. The continuing evaluation responsibility will be exercised under Phase III, and will provide data concerning the total operations of a State program to enable the Assistant Secretary to determine whether or not the plan approval should be continued or withdrawn.
( e ) The State program performance monitoring system provides for, but is not limited to, the following major data inputs: ( 1 ) Quarterly and annual reports of State program activity;
( 2 ) Visits to State agencies;
( 3 ) On-the-job evaluation of State compliance officers; and
( 4 ) Investigation of complaints about State program administration.
[No. 27826-0-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Adam Nelson Craig, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 01-1-00869-1, Jay B. Roof and M. Karlynn Haberly, JJ., entered September 13, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, C.J., concurred in by Armstrong and Quinn-Brintnall, JJ. Now published at 115 Wn. App. 191.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 31245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12439]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 17, 2000 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 31245]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary

7 CFR Part 2


Revision of Delegations of Authority; Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY:  The Department of Agriculture published in the Federal 
Register of February 4, 2000, a document of revising 7 CFR Part 2, 
Revision of Delegations of Authority. This document corrects the 
amendatory instructions in that document. The revisions to the 
delegations of authority were made to reflect passage of the 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Philip Schwab, Science Advisor and 
Legislation Affairs, Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service, USDA, Room 305-A, Jamie L. Whitten Federal Bldg., 
Washington, DC 20250, telephone 202-720-4423.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Department of Agriculture published in 
the Federal Register of February 4, 2000, (65 FR 5414) a revision to 
the delegations of authority found at 7 CFR Part 2. Paragraph number 
(a)(1)(xx) was inadvertently omitted from amendatory instruction 2.d. 
This correction revises amendatory instruction 2.d. to include that 
paragraph number.
    In FR Doc. 00-2396 published on February 4, 2000 (65 FR 5414) made 
the following correction. On page 5414, in the third column, amendatory 
instruction 2.d. to 2.21 is corrected to read as follows:


Sec. 2.21    [Corrected]

    2. * * *
    d. Revise paragraphs (a)(1)(x), (a)(1)(xx), (a)(1)(xliv), 
(a)(1)(l), (a)(1)(liii), (a)(1)(lvii), (a)(1)(lix), (a)(1)(lxxix), and 
(b)(1)(i) and add paragraphs (a)(1)(liv), (a)(1)(lxxx), (a)(1)(lxxxi), 
and (a)(1)(lxxxvii) to read as follows:

    Done at Washington, DC on this 11th day of May, 2000.
Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 00-12439 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 SRMOF 2009-1 TRUST , 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 31,786 4 GURUNEIL SINGH KHALSA GOODMAN, 5 JAGAT KHALSA, OCCUPANTS, WHOSE 6 TRUE NAMES ARE UNKNOWN, if any, 7 THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF GURUNEIL 8 SINGH KHALSA GOODMAN A/K/A 9 GURUNEIL SINGH KHALSA GOODMAN, 10 if any, and THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF 11 JAGAT KHALSA, if any, 12 Defendants-Appellants. 13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 14 Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge 15 Castle Stawiarski, LLC 16 Elizabeth Mason 17 Michael Neil 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellee 20 Guruneil Singh Khalsa Goodman 21 Santa Cruz, NM 22 Jagar Khalsa 23 Espanola, NM 242 Mukhtiar S. Khalsa 1 Santa Cruz, NM 2 Pro Se Appellants 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION 4 VIGIL, Judge. 5 Guruneil Singh Khalsa Goodman (Guruneil), Jagat Khalsa (Jagat), and 6 Mukhtiar S. Khalsa (Mukhtiar), have appealed from the deni al of their motion to set 7 aside a default judgment in the underlying foreclosure action. We filed a notice of 8 proposed summary disposition on March 29, 2012. As to Jagat, we proposed to affirm 9 the default judgment; as to Guruneil, we proposed to reverse the default judgment; and 10 as to Mukhtiar, we proposed that he was not a proper party to th e appeal. On April 11 20, 2012, Guruneil and Mukhtiar filed a memorandum in support of the proposed 12 summary disposition. No memorandum in opposition has been filed, and the time for 13 doing so has long since passed. 14 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the notice of proposed summary 15 disposition, we affirm in part, reverse inpart, and remand for further proceedings. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

_______________________________ 18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 193 WE CONCUR: 1

_________________________________ 2 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 3

_________________________________ 4 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 5
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 the Quarterly Report of NetMeasure Technology Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Laipnieks, President and acting CFO, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: November 10, 2004

By:/s/ Peter Laipnieks

Name: Peter Laipnieks

Title:    President and Acting CFO
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0178 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0178

**95/178/EC: Commission Decision of 12 May 1995 amending Commission Decision 94/325/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Thailand (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 117 , 24/05/1995 P. 0035 - 0039 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 12 May 1995 amending Commission Decision 94/325/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Thailand (Text with EEA relevance) (95/178/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (1), as last amended by the Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof,

Whereas the list of establishments approved by Thailand for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision 94/325/EC (2), as amended by Decision 94/704/EC (3); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in Thailand;

Whereas the competent authority in Thailand has communicated a new list amending the data of two establishments and the date of expiry of approval of 22 establishments;

Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision have been drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Commission Decision 90/13/EEC (4),

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex B of Decision 94/325/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 May 1995.

For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission

ANNEX

'ANNEX B List of approval establishments >TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            Dec-29-1996
<CASH>                                      382,993
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            861,994
<PP&E>                                    3,070,621
<DEPRECIATION>                            2,382,919
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            1,621,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     2,817,271
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                      9,643
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                               (1,205,362)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              1,621,552
<SALES>                                  12,682,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         12,707,840
<CGS>                                     9,466,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            16,882,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (4,174,910)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (129,020)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (4,303,930)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              88,812
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             (4,215,118)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (6.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (6.48)



</TABLE>
[No. 27407-8-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Margaret Mae Kimball, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 00-1-05351-9, Frederick W. Fleming and Terry D. Sebring, JJ., entered May 25, 2001. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Morgan and Houghton, JJ.
§ 1621.4 Effect of opinions and interpretations of the Commission. ( a ) Section 10 of the Portal to Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. 255, which applies to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. 206(d), provides that: In any action or proceeding based on any act or omission on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment * * * if he pleads and proves that the act or omission complained of was in good faith in conformity with and in reliance on any written administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval or interpretation * * * or any administrative practice or enforcement policy of [the Commission].
The Commission has determined that only the following documents may be relied upon by any employer as a “ruling, approval or interpretation” or as “evidence of any administrative practice or enforcement policy” of the Commission within the meaning of the statutory provisions quoted above. ( 1 ) A written document, entitled “opinion letter,” signed by the Legal Counsel on behalf of and as approved by the Commission;
( 2 ) A written document issued in the conduct of litigation, entitled “opinion letter,” signed by the General Counsel on behalf of and as approved by the Commission;
( 3 ) A matter published and specifically designated as such in the Federal Register.
( b ) An opinion letter issued pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, when issued to a specific addressee, has no effect upon circumstances beyond the situation of the specific addressee.