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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth D. Denman, as Chief Executive Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



|            |  |  |  |                        
|----------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|            |  |  |  | /s/ Kenneth D. Denman  
|            |  | 
|            |  |  |  | Kenneth D. Denman      
|May 6, 2011 |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anne Brennan, as Chief Financial
Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, (1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Openwave Systems
Inc.



|            |  |  |  |                        
|----------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|            |  |  |  | /s/ Anne Brennan       
|            |  | 
|            |  |  |  | Anne Brennan           
|May 6, 2011 |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### § 50-201.602 Decisions concerning exceptions and exemptions.

Decisions concerning exceptions and exemptions shall be in writing and approved by the Secretary of Labor or authorized representative, and shall be transmitted to the department or agency originating the request and to the Comptroller General. All such decisions containing significant issues of general applicability shall be disseminated to all contracting agencies by the Wage and Hour Division, ESA, of the Department of Labor.

[52 FR 6147, Mar. 2, 1987]
No. 11-5672.

#### Urias-Salazar *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 04-527 

________________________________________________________________________ 

ATOMIC ENERGY 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Signed at Moscow May 27, 2004 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Atomic Energy 

 Agreement signed at Moscow May 27, 2004; 

 Entered into force May 27, 2004.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0005843

25-SEP-2015

08:53 AM
**MEMORANDUM**

**TO:** Docket EPA- HQ - OAR- 2006 - 0790 **FROM:** Mary Johnson, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD **DATE:** November 2012 **SUBJECT:** National Renderers Association July 15, 2011 Letter

Area Source Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers The National Renderers Association (NRA) submitted to the EPA Air and Radiation Docket a letter dated July 15, 2011 that requested changes to the Area Source Boiler Rule. The NRA asserted that their requested changes must be considered because the EPA chan ged the definition for liquid fuels in the final rule from the proposed rule without an opportunity for comment. T he NRA stated their belie f that the EPA should determine that processed fats are a separate non - petroleum liquid fuel and that processed fats are not subject to regulation under subpart JJJJJJ . Specifically, the NRA requested a new processed fats fired boiler unit definition in subpart JJJJJJ , analogous to gas - fired boilers. The definition of liquid fuel in the March 21, 2011 final rule (76 FR 1 5554) included another example of liquid fuel (i.e., liquid biofuels) and clarified that the definition was not limited to only those examples of liquid fuels cited (i.e., means, but not limited to). We note that the submittal of comments by the NRA on the 2010 proposed rule (EPA- HQ - OAR- 2006 - 0790 - 0937) indicate that the NRA was on notice that processed fats - fired boilers may have be en subject to the provisions of the Area Source Boiler Rule. In the June 10, 2010 proposed rule notice (75 FR 31896), t he EPA e xplained the basis for defining gas - fired boilers as not being part of the source category. Comparisons of processed fats - fired boilers to gas - fired boilers could have been raised during the public comment period for the initial rulemaking. In its comments on the proposed rule (EPA- HQ - OAR- 2006 - 0790 - 0937), the NRA recognized that processed fats - fired boilers were covered by the Area Source Boiler Rule but did not suggest that thoseboilers should have been treated in a way that is analogous to

gas - fired boilers. Upon consideration of the issues raised by the NRA in the July 15, 2011, letter, the content of the notices described above, and the NRA’s timely comments on the June 2010 proposed rule, we deem its letter to be a r equest for reconsideration and deny its request. We conclude that the NRA has not demonstrated that its objections to the rule could not have been raised in the comment period nor has it established that the issue arose after the comment period but within 60 days of publication of the final rule.
1

**Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting Sul Ross University**  **Alpine, Texas October 24**  **- 26**  **, 2006 A**  **GENDA Meeting Theme**  **: Big Bend / El Gran Recodo**  **October 24 , 2006**  **8:00 a.m. Registration**  **8:30 a.m. Welcome Remarks** 

Rafael DeLeon, Director, EPA Of fice o f Cooperative Environmental Management Paul Ganster, Chair , Good Neighbor Environmental Board **Opening Remarks** Vic Morgan, President, Sul Ross University Mickey Clouse, May or of Alpine Judge Val Clark Beard, Brewster Count y **Self Introductio ns**  **9: 15**  **a.m. Speaker Presen**  **tations Begin**  9: 15 a.m.
– Key

note: Dr. Ernesto Enkerl in , President, National Commission on Protected Areas, Mexico 10:00 a.m.
– Key

note: Russ Whitlock , Texas National Parks State Coordinator, National P ark Service **1 0:45**  **a.m. Break**  1 1:0 0 : a.m **. –**  Paul Silb er, private landowner
- Wi ld & Scenic Rivers program 11:45 a .m. - Tom Beard, Far West Texas Water Planning Region

– Regional W ater Planning and W

ater A vailability **12:30 p.m. Lunch**  **2:00 p.m. Public Comment Session, including Tenth Report Input**  **2:45 p.m.**  **Speaker Presentations**  **Continue**2

2:4 5 p.m.

**–** David Scha nbacher, TCEQ Chief Engineer
- Regional H aze in Texas **3:3 0 p.m.**  **Break** 3:45 p.m.

– Jack Schmidt, Professor, Utah State Univers ity
- The Changing Physical

Template of our Shared R ivers 4:30 p.m.

– Mark Briggs, World Wildlife Fund

– Controlling Invasive Plants Along the

Rio Grande **5:15 p.m.**

**– Addi**  **tional Business 5:30 p.m.** 

**– Day One of**  **Meeting Ends**3 

### Good Neighbor Envi **ronmental Board Meeting**

**Sul Ross University Alpine, Texas**  **October 24 -**  **26, 2006**

( October 25 , 2006

- Board Field Trip to Big Bend National Park ; will include briefings from N ational P ark S

ervice officials and a presentation from Billy Pat Mckinney on the CEMEX El Carmen Conservation Project , located on adjoining land in Mexico ) **October 26, 2006** 

### BUSINESS MEETING **7:30 a.m. Registration**  **8:00 a.m. Welcome**  **8:05 a.m**
. **Discussion/ Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting**  **8:15 a.m.**  **Invitation f**

**or P ublic Input on Tenth Report Draft Recommendations**  **8:30 a.m.**  **Selection of Meeting Locations, Dates for 2007 9:30**  **a.m. Break**  **10:00 a.m.**  **Board Member Report**  **- out**  **s 1**  **0:45 a.m**  **. Selection**  **of Theme for Eleventh Report 11:30**  **a.m. Standard Op**  **erating Procedures for Board and Council on Environmental**

**Quality 12:00**  **N oon**  **Meeting Ends**  10/13 /06
§ 301-71.203 Who is responsible for the validity of the travel claim? The certifying officer assumes ultimate responsibility under 31 U.S.C. 3528 for the validity of the claim; however: ( a ) The traveler must ensure all travel expenses are prudent and necessary and submit the expenses in the form of a proper claim;
( b ) The authorizing/approving official shall review the completed claim to ensure that the claim is properly prepared in accordance with regulations and agency procedures prior to authorizing it for payment.
Note to § 301-71.203 :
You should consider limiting the levels of approval to the lowest level of management.
Newport District Court

No. 82-018

#### Paul E. Clark v. Robert Laware

December 8, 1982

*Elliott, Jasper & Bennett,*of Newport *(Bruce R. Jasper*on the brief), by brief for the plaintiff.

*H. Bernard Waugh, Jr.,*of Lyme, by brief for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

This civil case involves a question of damages arising out of the sale of a used car. The Justice of the Newport District Court *(Fairbanks,*J.) appointed a Master, *R. Wells Chandler,*Esq., to hear the case. The master rendered a report recommending a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $550. The recommendation was approved by the judge and a verdict was rendered in accordance therewith. The defendant appealed.

We must vacate the appointment of the master and the subsequent verdict because there is no authority in the district courts to refer cases to masters. RSA 502-A:5 (Supp. 1979) provides authority for special justices as follows:

> *991“If the justice and special justice of a district court are disqualified or unable from any cause to sit in any case a member of the bar of New Hampshire who is a disinterested justice of the peace within the district, or a disinterested justice or special justice from another district court, attending upon written request of the justice, may hear and determine the case and issue final process therein, and he shall keep a record thereof, which shall be kept with and constitute a part of the records of said court, all of which shall have like effects as if it were heard and determined by the justice of said court.”

Accordingly, we vacate the proceedings below and remand for a trial before a justice, special justice, or acting justice.

*Remanded.*
# Materials Not Included in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA - 2015 - 8471 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM153AD

A670BA - 32 - 040, RE --- 11/13/14 A670BA - 32 - 040, RD --- 7/2/14 A670BA - 32 - 040, RC --- 11/1/13 A670BA - 32 - 040, R B --- 8 / 6/ 1 3 A670BA - 32 - 040, RA --- 3/ 13/13 A670BA - 32 - 030, RC --- 3/13/13 A670BA - 32 - 030, RB --- 11/3/11 A670BA - 32 - 030, RA --- 10/22/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
§ 15.706 Information to the user. ( a ) In addition to the labeling requirements contained in § 15.19, the instructions furnished to the user of a white space device shall include the following statement, placed in a prominent location in the text of the manual: This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the rules for white space devices, pursuant to part 15 of the FCC rules. These rules are designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference. This equipment generates, uses and can radiate radio frequency energy and, if not installed and used in accordance with the instructions, may cause harmful interference to radio communications. If this equipment does cause harmful interference to radio or television reception, which can be determined by turning the equipment off and on, the user is encouraged to try to correct the interference by one or more of the following measures: (1) Reorient or relocate the receiving antenna. (2) Increase the separation between the equipment and receiver. (3) Connect the equipment into an outlet on a circuit different from that to which the receiver is connected. (4) Consult the manufacturer, dealer or an experienced radio/TV technician for help.
( b ) In cases where the manual is provided only in a form other than paper, such as on a computer disk or over the Internet, the information required by this section may be included in the manual in that alternative form, provided the user can reasonably be expected to have the capability to access information in that form.
§ 64.1902 Terms and definitions. Terms used in this part have the following meanings: *Books of account.* Books of account refer to the financial accounting system a company uses to record, in monetary terms, the basic transactions of a company. These books of account reflect the company's assets, liabilities, and equity, and the revenues and expenses from operations. Each company has its own separate books of account.
*Incumbent Independent Local Exchange Carrier* (Incumbent Independent LEC). The term incumbent independent local exchange carrier means, with respect to an area, the independent local exchange carrier that: ( 1 ) On February 8, 1996, provided telephone exchange service in such area; and
( 2 ) ( i ) On February 8, 1996, was deemed to be a member of the exchange carrier association pursuant to § 69.601(b) of this title; or
( ii ) Is a person or entity that, on or after February 8, 1996, became a successor or assign of a member described in paragraph (2)(i) of this section. The Commission may also, by rule, treat an independent local exchange carrier as an incumbent independent local exchange carrier pursuant to section 251(h)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
*Independent Local Exchange Carrier* (Independent LEC). Independent local exchange carriers are local exchange carriers, including GTE, other than the BOCs.
*Independent Local Exchange Carrier Affiliate* (Independent LEC Affiliate). An independent local exchange carrier affiliate is a carrier that is owned (in whole or in part) or controlled by, or under common ownership (in whole or in part) or control with, an independent local exchange carrier.
*In-region service.* In-region service means telecommunications service originating in an independent local exchange carrier's local service areas or 800 service, private line service, or their equivalents that: ( 1 ) Terminate in the independent LEC's local exchange areas; and
( 2 ) Allow the called party to determine the interexchange carrier, even if the service originates outside the independent LEC's local exchange areas.
*Local Exchange Carrier.* The term local exchange carrier means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. Such term does not include a person insofar as such person is engaged in the provision of a commercial mobile service under section 332(c), except to the extent that the Commission finds that such service should be included in the definition of that term.
[64 FR 44425, Aug. 16, 1999]
No. 11-8829.

#### Cowser *v.*Obama, President of the United States, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 3.5
DEAN HELLER
Secretary of State
204 North Carson Street, Suite 1
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4299
(775)  684  5708
Website:  secretaryofstate.biz

          Amendment to
   Certificate of Designation
After Issuance of Class of Series                        Filed #C5713-99
   (PURSUANT TO NRS 78, 1955)                             SEP 26, 2004
                                                        In the office of
                                                          Dean Heller
                                                 Dean Heller, Secretary of State

                                                         ABOVE SPACE IS FOR
                                                         OFFICE USE ONLY

Important: Read attached instructions before completing form.

                           Certificate of Designation
                        After Issuance of Class of Series
         (Pursuant to NRS 78, 1955 - After Issuance of Class of Series)

1.   Name of Corporation:

     PALOMAR ENTERPRISES, INC.

2.   Stockholder approval pursuant to status has been obtained.

3.   The class or series of stock being amended:

     CLASS B PREFERRED STOCK 5,000,000 SHARES.

4.   By a resolution adopted by the board of directors, the certificates of
     designed is being amended as follows or the new class or series is:

     CLASS B PREFERRED STOCK IS TO CONSIST OF 50,000,000 SHARES

5.   Effective date of filing (optional):

6.   Officer Signature (required):    STEVE BONENBERGER
                                      --------------------------------

     IMPORTANT:  Failure  to include any of the above information and submit the
     proper  fees  may  cause  this  filing  to  be  rejected.

     Filing Fee: $175.00

     SUBMIT IN DUPLICATE


<PAGE>
exv10w49



 





RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD CERTIFICATE




1/1/2007




TCS Employee

100 Main Street




Anywhere, MD 00000 USA




Dear TCS Employee:



Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. Fourth Amended and
Restated 199710 shares of the Class A common Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Common Stock”)
of TeleCommunication Systems,
Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), you have been granted Inc. (the “Company”) as outlined below.
This Certificate constitutes part of and is subject to the terms and
provisions of the attached Restricted Stock Grant Agreement (the “Agreement”) which is incorporated
herein by
reference.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Granted To:
	 	 TCS Employee
	 

	 	 	 	 (the ‘Employee’”)
	 

	 	Grant Date:
	 	 January 1, 2007
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Granted:
	 	 10
	 

	 	Grant Price:
	 	 $0.0000
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Vesting Schedule:
	 	 2007 Exec Restricted Stock
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 3 on 04/10/2007
	 

	 	 	 	 3 on 07/10/2007
	 

	 	 	 	 4 on 10/10/2007




By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge receipt of these shares granted on the date shown
above,
which has been issued to me under the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the Plan. I
understand that I must be an employee of, or otherwise providing service to TCS on the date the
shares vest, unless otherwise provided in the Agreement or the Plan, and that I will forfeit all
unvested shares at the close of business on my last day of employment or service with TCS. I
further
acknowledge receipt of the Plan Prospectus and the latest annual report or other SEC filing, and
agree to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the Option, as evidenced in the Agreement,
and the Plan.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signature:

	 	 	 	Date:	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 





TCS Employee




Note: If there are any discrepancies in the name or address shown above,
please make the appropriate corrections on this form.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00108

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N .I.V.S . and M.C.V.S., Minor Children

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 20008

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant Dino Villarreal.

SIGNE D March 11, 2015.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Inc.

13310 Nevada City Ave.

Grass Valley, CA 95945

Tel: 530-477-7701

Fax: 530-477-7764

April 15, 2011

Via Submission to Regulations.Gov

(Shell Docket FAA-2007-0001-0001)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management Facility

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

West Building, Ground Floor

Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alpine Aviation Inc., Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR Part 120.117,(a),(2). 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 11.16(b) and 11.81, Alpine Aviation Inc, hereby petitions for 

an exemption from the requirement for a separate Drug and Alcohol Misuse 

Prevention Program for part 91.147(a) operations.

Alpine Aviation Inc. located at 13310 Nevada City Ave., Grass Valley, CA 

currently operates under a part 135 Air Carrier certificate and a 14 C.F.R.

91.147(c)(7). Both certificates are wholly owned and operate under Alpine Aviation 

Inc. The flight crews and technicians currently participate in the Alpine Aviation 

Part 135 Drug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program. Having additional 

programs and testing will provide no increase in safety to the public. Separate and 

thus dual Drug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs will only increase costs to 

Alpine Aviation’s operations and thus the flying public without any providing any 

increase in safety. Alpine Aviation Inc. ensures that all safety sensitive personal are 

included in the companies Drug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program and as 

such maintains an equivalent level of safety to the flying public.

In summary, Alpine Aviation seeks an exemption from the requirement under 14 

CFR part 120.117(a)(2) for two separate Drug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention 

Programs under one company and management. 

Regards

Gordon Mills

Alpine Aviation