alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 for the year ended December 31, 2007, 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: April 2, 2008

| | /s/ Douglas J.RoweName: Douglas J. RoweTitle: Chief Executive Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                      

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7661

NORMAN E. WHITE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DENNY P. DOBBINS, JR., Attorney,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-859)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman E. White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. Sept. 1996, Pamphlet 3). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. White v. Dobbins, No. CA-96-859

(E.D. Va. Oct. 9, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
§ 117.70 Ring life buoys. ( a ) A vessel must have one or more ring life buoys as follows: ( 1 ) A vessel of not more than 7.9 meters (26 feet) in length must carry a minimum of one life buoy of not less than 510 millimeters (20 inches) in diameter;
( 2 ) A vessel of more than 7.9 meters (26 feet) in length, but not more than 19.8 meters (65 feet), must carry a minimum of one life buoy of not less than 610 millimeters (24 inches) in diameter; and
( 3 ) A vessel of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length must carry a minimum of three life buoys of not less than 610 millimeters (24 inches) in diameter.
( b ) Each ring life buoy on a vessel must: ( 1 ) Be approved in accordance with § 160.050 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.150;
( 2 ) Be readily accessible;
( 3 ) Be stowed in a way that it can be rapidly cast loose;
( 4 ) Not be permanently secured in any way; and
( 5 ) If on a vessel on an oceans or coastwise route, be orange in color.
( c ) At least one ring life buoy must be fitted with a lifeline. If more than one ring life buoy is carried, at least one must not have a lifeline attached. Each lifeline on a ring life buoy must: ( 1 ) Be buoyant;
( 2 ) Be at least 18.3 meters (60 feet) in length;
( 3 ) Be non-kinking;
( 4 ) Have a diameter of at least 7.9 millimeters (5/16-inch);
( 5 ) Have a breaking strength of at least 5 kilonewtons (1,124 pounds); and
( 6 ) Be of a dark color if synthetic, or of a type certified to be resistant to deterioration from ultraviolet light.
( d ) At least one ring buoy must be fitted with a floating waterlight, unless the vessel is limited to daytime operation, in that case no floating waterlight is required. ( 1 ) Each floating waterlight must be approved in accordance with § 161.010 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.110.
( 2 ) Each ring life buoy with a floating waterlight must have a lanyard of at least 910 millimeters (3 feet) in length, but not more than 1,830 millimeters (6 feet), securing the waterlight around the body of the ring life buoy.
( 3 ) Each floating waterlight installed after March 11, 1997, on a vessel carrying only one ring life buoy, must be attached to a lanyard with a corrosion-resistant clip. The clip must have a strength of at least 22.7 kilograms (50 pounds) and allow the waterlight to be quickly disconnected from the ring life buoy.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 911, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51047, Sept. 30, 1997; CGD 85-080, 62 FR 51350, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58283, Sept. 29, 2014; USCG-2015-0867, 80 FR 62469, Oct. 16, 2015]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HTK'S Development, Inc., 

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Flint,

Defendant.

/

Case No. 14-13918

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER OF REMAND OF PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIM 

Plaintiff HTK Development filed suit against Defendant in Genesee County Circuit

Court. Plaintiff's complaint seeks recovery under federal and state law. With respect to

Plaintiff's federal claim, he alleges a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution. Defendant timely removed the matter to this Court.

Being that the parties to this matter are nondiverse, this Court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim found in Count II of the complaint filed

in the Genesee County Circuit Court to avoid juror confusion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c);

Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 716 (U.S. 1973); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867

F. Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994). Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c) all of the

Plaintiff's claims found in Count II are hereby REMANDED to Genesee County Circuit

Court, Case 2014-103502-CZ. This Court, therefore, retains jurisdiction only over Counts

I and III of Plaintiff's complaint. 

2:14-cv-13918-NGE-MKM Doc # 2 Filed 10/16/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 12
SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: October 16, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on October 16, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol J. Bethel

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-13918-NGE-MKM Doc # 2 Filed 10/16/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 13
EXHIBIT E

5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 32-5 Filed 04/08/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 290
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 32-5 Filed 04/08/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 291
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 32-5 Filed 04/08/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 292
5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 32-5 Filed 04/08/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 293
#### § 15.725 Sailing short.

Whenever a vessel is deprived of the service of a member of its complement, and the master or person in charge is unable to find appropriate credentialed personnel to man the vessel, the master or person in charge may proceed on the voyage, having determined the vessel is sufficiently manned for the voyage. A report of sailing short must be filed with the OCMI having cognizance for inspection in the area in which the vessel is operating, or the OCMI within whose jurisdiction the voyage is completed. The report must explain the cause of each deficiency and be submitted within 12 hours after arrival at the next port. The actions of the master or person in charge in such instances are subject to review and it must be shown the vacancy was not due to the consent, fault or collusion of the master or other individuals specified in 46 U.S.C. 8101(e). A civil penalty may be assessed against the master or person in charge for failure to submit the report.

[CGD 81-059, 52 FR 38652, Oct. 16, 1987, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11262, Mar. 16, 2009; USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78005, Dec. 24, 2013]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-26517, 333-46407 and 333-51133 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-14863, 333-61723 and
333-49091 on Form S-8 of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (a Bermuda company)
of our reports with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Loral
Space & Communications Ltd. and Globalstar, L.P. and the financial statement
schedule of Loral Space & Communications Ltd., appearing in or incorporated by
reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Loral Space & Communications
Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 1999.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
San Jose, California
March 28, 2000
#### THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS A. ARCHIPLEY.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided January 3, 1929.

Before Justices Mintuen, Black and Campbell.

Eor the state, *Abe J. David*and *Walter 0. Tenney.*

Eor the defendant, *John W. McGeehan, Jr.*

Pee Cubiam.

The application for the writ of *certiorari*is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Flexible Solutions International, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


Date:  November 14, 2005
                                        /s/DANIEL B. O'BRIEN
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, 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 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.804 Vacuum protection. ( a ) Except as allowed under paragraph (b) of this section, each cargo tank must have a vacuum protection system meeting paragraph (a)(1) of this section and either paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section. ( 1 ) There must be a means of testing the operation of the system.
( 2 ) There must be a pressure switch that operates an audible and visual alarm in the cargo control station identifying the tank and the alarm condition and a remote group audible and visual alarm in the wheelhouse. Both alarms must be set at or below 80% of the maximum external design pressure differential of the cargo tanks. There must be a second, independent pressure switch that automatically shuts off all suction of cargo liquid or vapor from the cargo tank and secures any refrigeration of that tank at or below the maximum external design pressure differential.
( 3 ) There must be a vacuum relief valve that: ( i ) Has a gas flow capacity at least equal to the maximum cargo discharge rate per tank;
( ii ) Is set to open at or below the maximum external design pressure differential; and
( iii ) Admits inert gas, cargo vapor from a source other than a cargo vapor header, or air except as prohibited under § 154.1710.
( b ) A vacuum protection system does not have to be installed if the cargo tank is designed to withstand: ( 1 ) A maximum external pressure differential exceeding 24.5 kPa gauge (3.55 psig); and
( 2 ) The maximum external pressure differential that can be obtained: ( i ) At maximum discharge rates with no vapor return to the cargo tanks;
( ii ) By operation of the cargo refrigeration system; or
( iii ) By drawing off vapor for use in accordance with § 154.703(c)
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979; 44 FR 59234, Oct. 15, 1979]
§ 132.310 Fixed fire-extinguishing systems for paint lockers. ( a ) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, a fixed gaseous fire-extinguishing system or another approved fixed fire-extinguishing system must be installed in each paint locker.
( b ) No fixed fire-extinguishing system need be installed in a paint locker that is— ( 1 ) Less than 1.7 cubic meters (60 cubic feet) in volume;
( 2 ) Accessible only from the weather deck; and
( 3 ) Not adjacent to a tank for flammable or combustible liquid.
( c ) Each fixed fire-extinguishing system installed must comply with part 95 of this chapter or be approved by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center.
# C_2008075EN.01002501.xml

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/25

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2008/C 75/11)

| 1. | The Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below, as provided in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below, as provided in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (1).

1

2.   Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), J-79 4/23, B-1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

| 4. | This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3). |
| --- | --- |

4.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3).

3

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Footwear with uppers of leather | People's Republic of China
  Vietnam | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (OJ L 275, 6.10.2006, p. 1) | 7.10.2008 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Footwear with uppers of leather

People's Republic of China

Vietnam

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (OJ L 275, 6.10.2006, p. 1)

7.10.2008

---

(1)  OJ L 275, 6.10.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  Fax (32-2) 295 65 05.

2

(3)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

3

---
# C_2008317EN.01000301.xml

| 12.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/3

---

Communication in accordance with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature

(2008/C 317/03)

Binding Tariff Information ceases to be valid from this day if it becomes incompatible with the interpretation of the customs nomenclature as a result of the following international tariff measures:

Amendments to the Harmonized System Explanatory Notes and the Compendium of Classification Opinions, approved by the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC doc. NC1310) — report of the 41st Session of the HS Committee):

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION

(41st SESSION OF THE HSC IN MARCH 2008)

DOC. NC1310

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention

| 17.01 | N/13 |
| --- | --- |
| 28.01 General Explanatory Note | N/5 |
| 28.14 | N/16 |
| 29.16 | N/8 |
| Chapter 29 List II | N/8 |
| 30.02 | N/11 |
| 33.01 | N/12 |
| 41.01 | N/14 |
| 4101.20 Subheading Explanatory Note | N/14 |
| 57.02 | N/23 |
| 84.36 | N/26 |
| 85.08 | N/26 |
| 90.06 | N/29 |
| 90.21 | N/28 |
| 90.25 | N/15 |
| 90.27 | N/15 |

17.01

N/13

28.01 General Explanatory Note

N/5

28.14

N/16

29.16

N/8

Chapter 29 List II

N/8

30.02

N/11

33.01

N/12

41.01

N/14

4101.20 Subheading Explanatory Note

N/14

57.02

N/23

84.36

N/26

85.08

N/26

90.06

N/29

90.21

N/28

90.25

N/15

90.27

N/15

Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee

| 0210.99/1 | N/17 |
| --- | --- |
| 0902.20/1 | N/18 |
| 1517.90/3 | N/19 |
| 2208.90/3 | N/20 |
| 3504.00/1 | N/21 |
| 3907.20/3 | N/22 |
| 6110.30/1 | N/24 |
| 6211.33/1 | N/25 |
| 8504.40/2-5 | N/27 |
| 9503.00/4 | N/30 |
| 9503.00/7 | N/30 |

0210.99/1

N/17

0902.20/1

N/18

1517.90/3

N/19

2208.90/3

N/20

3504.00/1

N/21

3907.20/3

N/22

6110.30/1

N/24

6211.33/1

N/25

8504.40/2-5

N/27

9503.00/4

N/30

9503.00/7

N/30

Information regarding the contents of these measures can be obtained from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission (rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussels) or can be downloaded from the Internet site of this Directorate-General:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/harmonised_system/index_en.htm

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

CHRISTOPHER VAN HOLLEN, Jr., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 11-0766 (ABJ)

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

ORDER

Pursuant to the judgment of the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit, the Court refers this matter to defendant Federal Election Commission for further 

consideration. Defendant is directed to file a status report on or before October 12, 2012, 

advising the Court whether it intends to pursue rulemaking or defend the current regulation. The 

District Court will retain jurisdiction over this matter.

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

United States District Judge

DATE: September 20, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 66 Filed 09/20/12 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 21


                              List of Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<S>                                         <C>   <C>
MUSE Federal Systems Group Inc.             -     Incorporated in New Mexico on July 26, 1999;
                                                  100% owned by Registrant

Virtual Presence Limited                    -     Incorporated in the United Kingdom on July 26,
                                                  1991; 100% owned by Registrant

VR Solutions Limited (dormant)              -     Incorporated in the United Kingdom on December
                                                  6, 1994; 100% owned by Registrant

Virtual Presence Medical Limited (dormant)  -     Incorporated in the United Kingdom on May 1, 1998; 100%
                                                  owned by Registrant

Virtual Presence, Inc. (dormant)            -     Incorporated in Delaware on May 15, 1999; 100%
                                                  owned by Registrant

SARL Sim Team                               -     Incorporated in France on September 6, 1999; 74%
                                                  owned by Registrant

Virtual Presence Europe Limited (dormant)   -     Incorporated in the United Kingdom on October 22,
                                                  1999; 100% owned by Registrant
</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 161
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 161 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 161.006-5 Sampling, inspections and tests. ( a ) *General.* Motor lifeboat searchlights specified by this subpart are not inspected at regularly scheduled factory inspections of production lots, but the Commander of the Coast Guard District may detail an inspector at any time to visit any place where such searchlights are manufactured to check materials and construction methods and to conduct such tests and examinations as may be required to satisfy himself that the searchlights are being manufactured in compliance with the requirements of this specification and with the manufacturer's plans and specifications approved by the Commandant.
( b ) *Methods of test* — ( 1 ) *Waterproof test.* The searchlight shall be subjected for 5 minutes to a stream of water under a head of approximately 35 feet from a hose not less than 1 inch in diameter from a distance of approximately 10 feet. The hose nozzle shall be adjusted to give a solid stream at the enclosure. No leakage shall occur in this test.
( 2 ) *Beam candlepower.* All light except that produced from the searchlight under test shall be excluded from the room in which measurements are made. The searchlight shall be operated at rated voltage with a seasoned lamp as specified in § 161.006-4(e). Measurements of beam candlepower shall be made at the corners of a 6-inch square located in the center of the beam at a distance of 32 feet immediately in front of the searchlight.
( 3 ) *Corrosion resistance.* The searchlight shall be subjected to a 200-hour salt spray test in accordance with ASTM B 117 (incorporated by reference, see § 161.006-1). There shall be no evidence of corrosion that will be detrimental to the operation of the searchlight.
( 4 ) *Heat run.* The searchlight, completely assembled, shall be operated continuously for 2 hours at rated voltage following which the waterproof test shall be conducted. This cycle shall be repeated 3 times. The ambient temperature shall be approximately 25 °C. The water stream shall be from an ordinary cold water tap.
[CGFR 49-43, 15 FR 127, Jan. 11, 1950, as amended by USCG-1999-5151, 64 FR 67185, Dec. 1, 1999]