alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBTI 32.2**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

December 29, 2010

 

Bruce N. Warner, the Chief Financial Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

i.                              that this annual  report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

ii.                           that information contained in the annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations  of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 
|   | /s/ Bruce N. Warner                                      |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Bruce N. Warner                                          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |

 

1

----
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.052-3a Materials—Dee ring and snap hook assemblies and other instruments of closure for buoyant vests. ( a ) *Specifications.* Dee ring and snap hook assemblies and other instruments of closure for buoyant vests may have decorative platings in any thickness and must meet the following specifications: ( 1 ) The device must be constructed of inherently corrosion resistant materials. As used in this section the term *inherently corrosion resistant materials* includes, but is not limited to brass, bronze, and stainless steel.
( 2 ) The size of the opening of the device must be consistent with the webbing which will pass through the opening.
( b ) *Testing requirements.* Dee ring and snap hook assemblies and other instruments of closure for buoyant vests must— ( 1 ) Be tested for weathering. The Coast Guard will determine which one or more of the following tests will be used: ( i ) Application of a 20 percent sodium-chloride solution spray at a temperature of 95 °F (35 °C) for a period of 240 hours in accordance with the procedures contained in method 811 of the Federal Test Method Standard No. 151.
( ii ) Exposure to a carbon-arc weatherometer for a period of 100 hours.
( iii ) Submergence for a period of 100 hours in each of the following: ( a ) Leaded gasoline.
( b ) Gum turpentine.
( iv ) Exposure to a temperature of 0° ±5 °F (17.6 ±2.775 °C) for 24 hours; and
( 2 ) Within 5 minutes of completion of the weathering test required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the assembly must be attached to a support and bear 150 pounds for an adult size and 115 pounds for a child size for 10 minutes at ambient temperatures without breaking or distorting.
[CGD 73-130R, 39 FR 20684, June 13, 1974]
# C_2011269EN.01002801.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/28

---

Appeal brought on 22 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15/04/2011 in Case T-96/11: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-316/11 P)

2011/C 269/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Admit the complaint filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Admit the complaint filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.;

| — | Annul the decision of the General Court of April 15, 2011, T-96/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the General Court of April 15, 2011, T-96/11;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested order should be annulled on the following grounds:

| — | The reasoning of the General Court is defective; |
| --- | --- |

—

The reasoning of the General Court is defective;

| — | The General Court did not consider the arguments advanced by the holder of the trade mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court did not consider the arguments advanced by the holder of the trade mark.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No. 2:14-cv-14450 

SCOTTY’S INCORPORATED, a corporation, 

d/b/a BRUCE ENTERPRISES and 

BRUCE’S FRESH PRODUCTS, and 

SANDRA J. JACKSON an individual, 

Defendants. 

ORDER CANCELLING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 

The parties have filed a joint motion suggesting a change in the timing of 

expert reports, stating: 

“The parties have conferred, and hereby agree, that the deadline for all reports 

of proposed experts should be no later than twenty-eight days before the end 

of discovery, or March 3, 2015.” 

 The court accepts the parties’ suggestion and will enter an alteration of the 

scheduling order accordingly. The parties appear to be making suitable progress, 

and there appears to be no further need for a status conference at this time. If the 

parties have unresolved business to discuss with the court, they should jointly advise 

the court’s case manager. 

2:14-cv-14450-RHC-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 72
IT IS ORDERED that the April 16, 2015 scheduling conference is 

CANCELLED. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

 ROBERT H. CLELAND 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 14, 2015 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

and/or pro se parties on this date, April 14, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 S/Lisa Wagner 

 Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 

 (313) 234-5522 

2:14-cv-14450-RHC-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 73
§ 163.002-9 Approval procedure. ( a ) *General.* A pilot hoist is approved by the Coast Guard under the procedures in subpart 159.005 of this chapter.
( b ) *Approval testing.* Each approval test must be conducted in accordance with § 163.002-21.
( c ) *Approval of alternative designs.* A pilot hoist that does not meet the materials, construction, or performance requirements of this subpart may be approved if the application and any approval tests prescribed by the Commandant in place of or in addition to the approval tests required by this subpart, show that the alternative materials, construction, or performance is at least as effective as that specified by the requirements of this subpart.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.076-9 Conditional approval. ( a ) A conditionally approved inflatable PFD may be used to meet the Coast Guard PFD carriage requirements of 33 CFR part 175 only if the PFD is used in accordance with any requirements on the approval label. PFDs marked “Approved only when worn” must be worn whenever the vessel is underway and the intended wearer is not within an enclosed space if the PFD is intended to be used to satisfy the requirements of 33 CFR part 175. Note: Additional approved PFDs may be needed to satisfy the requirements of 33 CFR part 175 if “Approved only when worn” PFDs are not worn.
( b ) PFDs not meeting the performance specifications in UL 1180 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 160.076-11) may be conditionally approved when the Commandant determines that the performance or design characteristics of the PFD make such classification appropriate.
[CGD 94-110, 60 FR 32848, June 23, 1995, as amended by CGD 94-110, 61 FR 13945, Mar. 28, 1996; USCG-2011-0076, 77 FR 19942, Apr. 3, 2012; USCG-2013-0263, 79 FR 56500, Sept. 22, 2014]
# C_2016048EN.01003201.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission

(Case T-38/11) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))

(2016/C 048/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Queensway, Hong Kong, China) (represented initially by D. Vaughan QC, R. Kreisberger, Barrister, B. Bar-Bouyssiere, lawyer, and M. Rees, Solicitor, then by D. Vaughan, R. Kreisberger and M. Rees)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and J. Bourke, and subsequently by A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cathay Pacific Airways. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Cathay Pacific Airways.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.**

** **

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

I, Thomas G. Lehmann, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of theperiod covered by this report on Form 10–K of WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR10 Trust (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement ofa  material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.         Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.         Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.         All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their relatedattestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann                                                                        |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  ThomasG. Lehmann                                                                 |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
# C_2014421EN.01004701.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — CG v EIB

(Case F-115/11) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Staff of the EIB - Appointment - Post of Head of division - Appointment of a candidate other than the applicant - Irregularities in the selection procedure - Duty of impartiality on the members of the selection board - Blameworthy conduct by the president of the selection board towards the applicant - Conflict of interests - Oral presentation made by all candidates - Documents provided for the oral presentation likely to favour one of the candidates - Candidate having taken part in the drafting of the documents provided - Infringement of the principle of equal treatment - Action for annulment - Claim for compensation))

2014/C 421/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CG (represented initially by: N. Thieltgen, lawyer, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the President of the EIB not to appoint the applicant but another candidate to the post of head of a division within the EIB and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank of 28 July 2011 appointing Mr A. to the post of Head of the Risk Policy and Pricing Division; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank of 28 July 2011 appointing Mr A. to the post of Head of the Risk Policy and Pricing Division;

| 2. | Orders the European Investment Bank to pay CG the sum of EUR 25  000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Investment Bank to pay CG the sum of EUR 25  000;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CG. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CG.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 28.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.315 Sulfur. ( a ) This part applies to lump or coarse grain powder sulfur only. Fine-grained powder (“flowers of sulfur”) may not be transported in bulk.
( b ) After the loading or unloading of lump or coarse grain powder sulfur has been completed, sulfur dust must be removed from the vessel's decks, bulkheads, and overheads. Cargo residues and deck sweepings must be disposed of pursuant to 33 CFR 151.55 through 151.77.
( c ) A cargo space that contains sulfur or the residue of a sulfur cargo must be adequately ventilated, preferably by mechanical means. Each ventilator intake must be fitted with a spark-arresting screen.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.064-6 Examinations, tests and inspections. ( a ) *Manufacturer's inspection and tests.* Manufacturers of listed and labeled water safety buoyant devices shall maintain quality control of the materials used, manufacturing methods and the finished product so as to meet the applicable requirements, and shall make sufficient inspections and tests of representative samples and components produced to maintain the quality of the finished product. Records of tests conducted by the manufacturer and records of materials, including affidavits by suppliers that applicable requirements are met, entering into construction shall be made available to the recognized laboratory inspector or to the Coast Guard marine inspector, or both, for review upon request.
( b ) *Laboratory inspections and tests.* Such examinations, inspections and tests as are required by the recognized laboratory for listed and labeled devices produced will be conducted by the laboratory inspector at the place of manufacture or other location at the option of the laboratory.
( c ) *Test facilities.* The laboratory inspector, or the Coast Guard marine inspector assigned by the Commander of the District in which the factory is located, or both, shall be admitted to any place in the factory where work is being done on listed and labeled products, and either or both inspectors may take samples of parts or materials entering into construction or final assemblies, for further examinations, inspections, or tests. The manufacturer shall provide a suitable place and the apparatus necessary for the performance of the tests which are done at the place of manufacture.
( d ) *Additional tests, etc.* Unannounced examinations, tests, and inspections of samples obtained either directly from the manufacturer or through commercial channels may be made to determine the suitability of a product for listing and labeling, or to determine conformance of a labeled product to the applicable requirements. These may be conducted by the recognized laboratory or the United States Coast Guard.
[CGFR 64-30, 29 FR 7388, June 6, 1964, as amended by CGD 73-246R, 39 FR 36967, Oct. 16, 1974]
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 160.046-7 Independent laboratory.

Unless the Commandant directs otherwise, an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under 46 CFR part 159, subpart 159.010, must perform or witness, as appropriate, inspections, tests, and oversight required by ISO 18813:2006(E) paragraph 4.31 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.046-3). Approval and production tests of emergency provisions must be carried out in accordance with the procedures for independent laboratory inspections in 46 CFR part 159, subpart 159.007, and in this section unless the Commandant authorizes alternative tests and inspections. The Commandant may prescribe additional production tests and inspections necessary to maintain quality control and to monitor compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.1604 Determining the stripping quantity from the test results. ( a ) For a single test, the stripping quantity is the volume of water calculated under § 153.1602(d).
( b ) If multiple tests are made on a tank without modifications to the tank, pumping system, or stripping procedure between the tests, the stripping quantity must be taken as the average of the stripping quantities for all of the tests.
( c ) If multiple tests are made on a tank with modifications to the tank, pumping system, or stripping procedure between the tests, the stripping quantity is the stripping quantity determined under paragraph (b) of this section using only those tests performed after the last modification.
# C_2012258EN.01001903.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston v OHIM (shape of a bottle)

(Case T-323/11) (1)

1

(Community trade marks - Absolute grounds for refusal - Application for a three-dimensional trade mark - Shape of a bottle - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 258/35

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston SAA (Lima, Peru) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and C. Morán Medina, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2011 (Case R 2238/2010-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting in the shape of a bottle as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston SAA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Unión de Cervecerías Peruanas Backus y Johnston SAA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.022-3 Materials, workmanship, construction, and performance requirements. ( a ) *Materials.* The materials shall conform strictly to the specifications and drawings submitted by the manufacturer and approved by the Commandant. Metal for containers shall be not less than 0.5 mm (0.020 in.) in thickness. Other dimensions or materials may be considered upon special request when presented with supporting data. Igniter systems shall be corrosion-resistant metal. The combustible material shall be of such nature that it will not deteriorate during long storage, nor when subjected to frigid or tropical climates, or both.
( b ) *Workmanship.* Floating orange smoke distress signals shall be of first class workmanship and shall be free from imperfections of manufacture affecting their appearance or that may affect their serviceability.
( c ) *Construction.* The outer container shall be of a size suitable for its intended use. All sheet metal seams should be hook-jointed and soldered. The whole container shall be covered with two coats of waterproof paint or equivalent protection system. The igniter mechanism shall be simple to operate and provide ignition in most unfavorable weather. The mechanism shall be protected with a watertight cover having a finish which is corrosion-resistant to salt water and spray. The cover shall be easily and quickly removable by hand without the use of tools. If attachment of the cover is by formed screw threads, it shall be of such construction or material to prevent rusting or corrosion and will not back off and loosen under shipboard vibration.
( d ) *Performance.* Signals shall meet all the inspection and test requirements contained in § 160.022-4.