alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 605.47 Nonacademic services. ( a ) *Physical education and athletics.* ( 1 ) In providing physical education courses and athletics and similar aid, benefits, or services to any of its students, a recipient to which this subpart applies may not discriminate on the basis of handicap. A recipient that offers physical education courses or that operates or sponsors intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics shall provide to qualified handicapped students an equal opportunity for participation in these activities.
( 2 ) A recipient may offer to handicapped students physical education and athletic activities that are separate or different only if separation or differentiation is consistent with the requirements of § 605.43(d) and only if no qualified handicapped student is denied the opportunity to compete for teams or to participate in courses that are not separate or different.
( b ) *Counseling and placement services.* A recipient to which this subpart applies that provides personal, academic, or vocational counseling, guidance, or placement services to its students shall provide these services without discrimination on the basis of handicap. The recipient shall ensure that qualified handicapped students are not counseled toward more restrictive career objectives than are nonhandicapped students with similar interests and abilities. This requirement does not preclude a recipient from providing factual information about licensing and certification requirements that may present obstacles to handicapped persons in their pursuit of particular careers.
( c ) *Social organizations.* A recipient that provides significant assistance to fraternities, sororities, or similar organizations shall assure itself that the membership practices of such organizations do not permit discrimination otherwise prohibited by this subpart.
[47 FR 8573, Mar. 1, 1982, as amended at 68 FR 51381, Aug. 26, 2003]
Exhibit 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                     OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

  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

I, Timothy Shea, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of SurgiLight, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of SurgiLight, Inc.

						/s/ Timothy Shea
                                                ----------------
                                                Timothy Shea
                                                President
                                                August 14, 2007

I, Timothy Shea, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of SurgiLight, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of SurgiLight, Inc.

						/s/ Mark Murphy
                                                ----------------
                                                Mark Murphy
                                                CFO
                                                August 14, 2007
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on National Guard and Reserves in the GWOT will meet in closed session on April 17-18, 2007; at the Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the consequences for force structure, morale, and mission capability of deployments of members of the National Guard and the Reserves in the course of the global war on terrorism that are lengthy, frequent, or both.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at                         *clifton.phillips@osd.mil*                         or via phone at (703) 571-0083.                    

Dated: March 27, 2007.

C.R. Choate,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 07-1600 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT MICHIGAN 

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Civil Case No. 14-12415 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address ) 

68.32.94.253, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 )

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE 

THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA PRIOR TO A RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve A Third 

Party Subpoena Prior to a Rule 26(f) Conference (the “Motion”), and the Court being duly 

advised in the premises does hereby: 

FIND, ORDER AND ADJUDGE: 

1. Plaintiff established that “good cause” exists for it to serve a third party subpoena 

on Comcast Cable (hereinafter the “ISP”). See UMG Recording, Inc. v. Doe, 2008 WL 

4104214, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008); and Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-19, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6-7 

(D.D.C. 2008). 

2. Plaintiff may serve the ISP with a Rule 45 subpoena commanding the ISP to 

provide Plaintiff with the true name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of the 

Defendant to whom the ISP assigned an IP address as set forth on Exhibit A to the Complaint. 

Plaintiff shall attach to any such subpoena a copy of this Order. 

2:14-cv-12415-SJM-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 06/29/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 36
 2 

3. Plaintiff may also serve a Rule 45 subpoena in the same manner as above on any 

service provider that is identified in response to a subpoena as a provider of Internet services to 

one of the Defendants. 

4. If the ISP that qualifies as a “cable operator,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 522(5), 

which states: 

the term “cable operator” means any person or group of persons 

(A) who provides cable service over a cable system and directly or through one 

or more affiliates owns a significant interest in such cable system, or 

(B) who otherwise controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the 

management and operation of such a cable system. 

shall comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), which states: 

A cable operator may disclose such [personal identifying] information if the 

disclosure is . . . made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure, if the 

subscriber is notified of such order by the person to whom the order is directed. 

 

by sending a copy of this Order to the Defendant. 

5. Plaintiff may only use the information disclosed in response to a Rule 45 

subpoena served on the ISP for the purpose of protecting and enforcing Plaintiff’s rights as set 

forth in its Complaint. 

SO ORDERED. 

 S/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

 Stephen J. Murphy, III 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: June 29, 2014 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or 

counsel of record on June 29, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 S/Carol Cohron 

 Case Manager 

2:14-cv-12415-SJM-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 06/29/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 37
#### § 670.25 Designation of specially protected species of native mammals, birds, plants, and invertebrates.

The following species has been designated as Specially Protected Species by the Antarctic Treaty Parties and is hereby designated Specially Protected Species:

Common Name and Scientific Name

Ross Seal—Ommatophoca rossii

[73 FR 14939, Mar. 20, 2008]
Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Mary Kay Fenton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 10, 2010 |  | /s/ Mary Kay Fenton    
|                    |  | Mary Kay Fenton        
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERICA MORENO and

KATTI PUTNAM,

Plaintiffs, Case Number: 14-13829

HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.

RON HUGHES,

Defendant.

__________________________/

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE [#12]

On September 8, 2015, Defendant Ron Hughes, a Michigan Department of Corrections

Absconder Recover Unit Investigator, filed a Motion in Limine [Dkt. No. 12]. Plaintiffs filed a

response, and Defendant did not file a reply. The Court conducted a hearing on December 16, 2015,

and both parties were present and heard. As stated on the record at the December 16, 2015, hearing,

Defendant’s Motion in Limine is denied without prejudice.

At the December 16, 2015, hearing, the Court asked the parties whether there was any law

addressing the right of a plaintiff to recover damages for emotional distress for injury to a dog (or

pet) in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. Neither party was able to direct the Court to a case on point. The

Court believes that issue is critical in determining the value of this case in the event Defendant is

liable and would like the parties to advise the Court whether any other courts have decided that

specific issue and what such rulings were. As stated at hearing, the parties are to file with the Court,

on or before January 6, 2016, supplemental briefs on that issue only.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion In Limine [Dkt. No. 12] is

2:14-cv-13829-GAD-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 12/21/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 72
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties must file with the Court, on or before January 6,

2016, their supplemental briefs addressing the right of a plaintiff to recover damages for emotional

distress for injury to a dog (or pet) in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2015 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

2:14-cv-13829-GAD-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 12/21/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 73
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**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 Annual Report of Homeland Security Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008,as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the            “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on thedate indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1.     The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| Date:     September 29, 2008 |   |                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                                                  | By:    | */s/ C. Thomas McMillen* |
|                                                  | Name:  | C. Thomas McMillen       |
|                                                       | Title: | Chief Executive Officer  |
|                                             |   |                     |
|                                                  |   |                     |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Homeland Security Capital Corporation and will be retained            by Homeland Security Capital Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.1

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

In connection with the annual report of Birch Mountain Resources Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas
J. Rowe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 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 the Company.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 10, 2005

| | /s/
    Douglas J. Rowe                                               
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name: Douglas J. Rowe
    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 91.42 Complaints. ( a ) Any person, individually or as a member of a class or on behalf of others, may file a complaint with HHS, alleging discrimination prohibited by the Act or these regulations based on an action occurring on or after July 1, 1979. A complainant shall file a complaint within 180 days from the date the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged act of discrimination. However, for good cause shown, HHS may extend this time limit.
( b ) HHS will consider the date a complaint is filed to be the date upon which the complaint is sufficent to be processed.
( c ) HHS will attempt to facilitate the filing of complaints wherever possible, including taking the following measures: ( 1 ) Accepting as a sufficient complaint, any written statement which identifies the parties involved and the date the complainant first had knowledge of the alleged violation, describes generally the action or practice complained of, and is signed by the complainant.
( 2 ) Freely permitting a complainant to add information to the complaint to meet the requirements of a sufficient complaint.
( 3 ) Notifying the complainant and the recipient of their rights and obligations under the complaint procedure, including the right to have a representative at all stages of the complaint procedure.
( 4 ) Notifying the complainant and the recipient (or their representatives) of their right to contact HHS for information and assistance regarding the complaint resolution process.
( d ) HHS will return to the complainant any complaint outside the jurisdiction of these regulations, and will state the reason(s) why it is outside the jurisdiction of these regulations.
§ 119.425 Engine exhaust cooling. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, all engine exhaust pipes must be water cooled. ( 1 ) Vertical dry exhaust pipes are permissible if installed in compliance with §§ 116.405(c) and 116.970 of this chapter.
( 2 ) Horizontal dry exhaust pipes are permitted only if: ( i ) They do not pass through living or berthing spaces;
( ii ) They terminate above the deepest load waterline;
( iii ) They are so arranged as to prevent entry of cold water from rough or boarding seas;
( iv ) They are constructed of corrosion resisting material at the hull penetration; and
( v ) They are installed in compliance with §§ 116.405(c) and 116.970 of this chapter.
( b ) The exhaust pipe cooling water system must comply with the requirements of this paragraph. ( 1 ) Water for cooling the exhaust pipe must be obtained from the engine cooling water system or a separate engine driven pump.
( 2 ) Water for cooling an exhaust pipe, other than a vertical exhaust, must be injected into the exhaust system as near to the engine manifold as practicable. The water must pass through the entire length of the exhaust pipe.
( 3 ) The part of the exhaust system between the point of cooling water injection and the engine manifold must be water-jacketed or effectively insulated and protected in compliance with §§ 116.400(b) and 116.970 of this chapter.
( 4 ) Each vertical exhaust pipe must be water-jacketed or suitably insulated between the engine manifold and the spark arrester required by § 119.430(g) of this part.
( 5 ) When the exhaust cooling water system is separate from the engine cooling water system, a suitable warning device, visual or audible, must be installed at the operating station to indicate any reduction in normal water flow in the exhaust cooling system.
( 6 ) A suitable hull strainer must be installed in the circulating raw water intake line for the exhaust cooling system.
( c ) Engine exhaust cooling systems built in accordance with the requirements of American Boat and Yacht Council (ABCY) P-1, “Installation of Exhaust Systems for Propulsion and Auxiliary Engines,” will be considered as meeting the requirements of this section.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, as Receiver for 

Washington Mutual Bank,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-13706

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE

COMPANY, Successor by Merger to

Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER

Before the court are Defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance Company’s

objections to the magistrate judge’s rulings on its motion to compel discovery. 

Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Company and Non-Party JPMorgan Chase

Bank submitted responses, to which Defendant replied. Defendant’s objections

relate to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s March 24, 2017 opinion and order

denying Defendant’s motion to compel. 

The court may modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s

order that is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is

evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City

of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v. U. S.

Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). The court may not disturb the

magistrate’s factual findings “even though convinced that had it been sitting as the

trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Id. The court allows

the magistrate’s legal conclusions to stand unless they are “contrary to law.”

Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992) aff’d, 19 F.3d 1432 (6th

Cir. 1994).

Having reviewed the record and Defendant’s objections, the court finds that

Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s March 24, 2017 order is neither clearly erroneous nor

contrary to law.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s objections are

OVERRULED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: June 1, 2017

-2-
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon

counsel of record on this date, June 1, 2017, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-3-
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50338 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ISSAC MARTINEZ-CORTEZ, also known as Rigoberto Montanyo-Cortez Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-1918 Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Issac Martinez-Cortez (Martinez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez has been deported and has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s briefdiscloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furtherNo. 06-50338

2 responsibilities herein, and theAPPEAL IS DISMISSED in part asfrivolous, see 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2, and in part as moot.