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



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2014 (the "Form 10-Q") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").



I, Heather D. Brolick, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Issuer, certify that to my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 14, 2014



| | /s/ Heather D. Brolick                
| | --------------------------------------
| | Heather D. Brolick                    
| | President and Chief  Executive Officer
#### § 122.910 Suspension and revocation.

An individual holding a merchant mariner credential license, certificate or registry, or merchant mariner's document who commits an act of misconduct, negligence, or incompetence, or who violates or fails to comply with this subchapter or any other law or regulation intending to promote marine safety, is subject to proceedings under the provisions of 46 U.S.C. 7703 and part 5 in subchapter A of this chapter with respect to suspension or revocation of a credential.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 935, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51047, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11266, Mar. 16, 2009]
11 -i CHAPTER 11. LIFE

- CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 11-1 11.2 GENERAL APPROACH

................................ ................................ .................................. 11-111 -1 CHAPTER 11. LIFE

- CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

The life -cycle cost (LCC) subgroup analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable groups or customers who may be disproportionately affected by any national energy efficiency standard level. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will conduct this analysis as one of the analyses for the notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the LCC and payback periods (PBPs) for those customers who fall into identifiable affected groups. DOE plans to evaluate variations in regional energy prices and variations in energy use that might affect the net present value of a standard to customer subpopulations. To the extent possible, DOE will obtain estimates of each input parameter’s variability and will consider this variability in its calcu lation of customer impacts. DOE plans to perform sensitivity analyses to consider how differences in energy use will affect subgroups of customers.

DOE will determine the impact on customer subgroups using the LCC spreadsheet model, which allows for different data inputs. The standard life-cycle cost and payback period analysis (described in the preliminary t echnical support document (TSD) chapter 8) focuses on all business and institution al us ers of walk -in equipment. DOE can use the LCC spreadsheet model to analyze the LCC for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup. Model inputs used by the Department to determine LCC and PBPs are described in detail in the life

- cycle cost and payback period analysis (see prelimin ary TSD chapter 8).

11.2 GENERAL APPROACH

DOE will use the LCC spreadsheet model to evaluate impacts on consumer subgroups, especially small -business customers . DOE can analyze the LCC for any subgroup by applying the LCC spreadsheet model to only that subgroup within individual regions . DOE is particularly sensitive to increases in the consumer price of the considered products, wishing to avoid a negative economic impact on any identified consumer subgroup with limited capacity to absorb price increases

. Th e impacts on subgroups will be compared to impacts on the overall population. Compared to the 2009 final rule analysis, DOE will expand the scope to include additional subgroups such as independent restaurant owners, coffee shops and delis, and schools.
# C_2011340EN.01004101.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/41

---

Action brought on 8 August 2011 — ZZ v EASA

(Case F-81/11)

2011/C 340/84

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B.-H. Vincent, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to re-assign the applicant to a non-managerial post in the interest of the service as a result of an unfavourable evaluation report, as well as an application to pay the applicant an amount by way of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Executive Director of 17 December 2010 concerning the re-assignment of the applicant to ‘a non-managerial post in the interest of the service’ as a result of an unfavourable management evaluation report; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Executive Director of 17 December 2010 concerning the re-assignment of the applicant to ‘a non-managerial post in the interest of the service’ as a result of an unfavourable management evaluation report;

| — | Order EASA to pay the applicant an amount fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 350 000,00 by way of compensation for the non-material and professional damage he has suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date at which that amount becomes due; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EASA to pay the applicant an amount fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 350 000,00 by way of compensation for the non-material and professional damage he has suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date at which that amount becomes due;

ex aequo et bono

| — | Order AESA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order AESA to pay the costs.

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

 

Tothe Board of Directors

NorthernCalifornia Bancorp Inc.

Monterey,California

 

Wehereby consent to the use in the 10-K for the Northern California Bancorp Inc.of our report dated March 27, 2009 relating to the financial statements ofthe Northern California Bancorp Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 andfor the three years then ended.

 

 
| /s/  Hutchinson and Bloodgood, LLP |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Watsonville,  California           |   |
| April 6,  2009                |   |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 4, 2009

d0122 

# Order

February 4, 2009

136341

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136341 COA: 283758 Kalamazoo CC: 07-000583-FH SCOTT RONALD GRAY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 21, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People v Jackson (Docket No. 135888) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may re solve an issue raised in the pr esent application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in
that case.
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.

§ 154.605 Toughness test. ( a ) Each toughness test under §§ 154.610 through 154.625 must meet Subpart 54.05 of this chapter.
( b ) If subsize test specimens are used for the Charpy V-notch toughness test, the Charpy V-notch energy must meet Table 54.05-20 (a) of this chapter.
# C_2011282EN.01005102.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/51

---

Action brought on 19 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-41/11)

2011/C 282/96

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment.

Form of order sought by the applicant

Form of order sought by the applicant

| — | Annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 11 February 2011 to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Director-General of OLAF of 11 February 2011 to reject the applicant’s request for the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

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

§ 160.038-5 Marking. ( a ) Portable magazine chests used for the stowage of pyrotechnic signals, rockets, and powder for line-throwing guns shall be marked, in letters at least 3 inches high, with the following legend: “Portable Magazine Chest, Inflammable—Keep Lights and Fire Away.”
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 169.243 Electrical. At each inspection for certification and periodic inspection, the marine inspector will examine and test the following items to the extent necessary, to determine that they are in proper operating condition, in safe electrical condition, and fit for the service for which they are intended: ( a ) *Electrical cable.* All cable is examined as far as practicable without undue disturbance of the cable or electrical apparatus.
( b ) *Overload or circuit protective devices.* Circuit breakers are tested by manual operation and fuses examined visually. The ratings of fuses are checked to determine suitability for the service intended.
( c ) *Rotating machinery.* Rotating electrical machinery essential to the routine operation of the vessel is examined.
( d ) *Generators, etc.* All generators, motors, lighting fixtures and circuit interrupting devices located in spaces or areas which may contain flammable vapors are checked.
( e ) *Storage batteries.* Batteries are checked for condition and security of stowage.
( f ) *Fire detection and alarm system.* Electrical apparatus, which operates as part of or in conjunction with a fire detection or alarm system installed on board the vessel, is operationally tested. The test is applied, in a manner to simulate, as closely as practicable, the actual operation in case of fire.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6508, Feb. 9, 2000]
SUPREME COURT.

#### George S. Thompson, appellant, agt. James C. Fargo, Treasurer, &c., respondent.

*First Department, General Term,*

*October,*1874.

*Discharges from military service, when valid though names not on the muster rolls.*

When from circumstances it is to be inferred that two discharges from military service are genuine and authentic; and if they are it is evidence that the persons named in them were in the United States military service and entitled to the money payable under them, although for some reason their names did not appear on the muster roll of the company.

Appeal from judgment recovered on referee’s report.

*Edward Van Ness,*for appellant.

*Hamilton Cole,*for respondent.

Daniels, J.

Upon the trial of this action the plaintiff produced a verified copy of the muster roll of Company H, Eleventh Regiment of Illinois Cavalry, from which it appeared that neither the name of John White nor William White appeared among the officers or men of that company. From that circumstance it was maintained, on behalf of the plaintiff, that neither of those persons belonged to the company, and that they were fictitious persons. But the discharge of each person was produced, purporting to be given by M. Campbell, as captain of the Eighth Iowa Infantry, com*94manding the regiment; and, according to plaintiff’s own evidence, he presented these discharges to the paymaster at Springfield when he received' the amounts claimed by the Whites. And upon them, with the other papers used, the plaintiff received for them the money in dispute in this action.

From these circumstances it is to be inferred that the discharges produced were genuine and authentic. And if they were, then they are evidence that the Whites were in the United States military service, and entitled to the money in controversy, although for some reason their names do not appear on the muster roll of the company. There was sufficient before the referee to justify him in concluding that the Whites were real living individuals, and entitled, as against the plaintiff, to the money claimed in this action. And as that was the case, no such change was made in the evidence as distinguished the facts proved, or the rights of the plaintiff, from what they appeared to be when this action was previously before the courts for review. Accordingly the decision then made is conclusive against the plaintiff; and the judgment appealed from should be affirmed *(Thompson*agt. *Fargo,*49 *N. Y.,*188.) ,

Davis, P. J., and Lawrence, J., concurred.
**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 of Zomex Distribution, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:				(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and				(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|      /s/ Peter Buckley |
| **Peter Buckley**                               |
| **Chief Financial Officer**                     |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6075

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SIDNEY EDWARD HUDDLESTON, III, a/k/a Eddy, a/k/a Sidney E. 

Huddleston, III,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00042-1; 3:11-cv-00403)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sidney Edward Huddleston, III, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Grimes 

Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sidney Edward Huddleston, III, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Huddleston has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code sections 40000, 40001 , 40702, 40716 

and 40910 authorize the Feather River Air Quality Management District to adopt this proposed 

rule and regulation; and 

WHEREAS, this Resolution, and the Regulation set forth herein, was adopted after 

proceedings held in accordance with provisions of chapters 6 and 6.5 of part 3 of division 26 of 

the California Health and Safety Code (commencing with section 40700), and a duly noticed 

public hearing was held on October 6, 2014 to consider amending Regulation X, Rule 10.9-

Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits and Banking; and 

WHEREAS, District staff has prepared a written analysis of the proposed rule, pursuant 

to Health and Safety Code section 40727.2, and has maintained a record of the rulemaking 

proceeding pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 40728; and 

WHEREAS, there is no indication at this time that the proposed rule is written in such a 

manner that the persons affected by it could not easily understand it; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed rule is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or 

contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or State or federal regulations and any 

duplication with existing state or federal regulations is necessary or proper to execute the powers 

and duties of the Feather River Air Quality Management District; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed rule is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA), under Section 15060( c )(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because the activity will not 

result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and no 

further action is required under CEQA; and 

WHEREAS, the District Board has made the required findings of authority, necessity, 

clarity, consistency, non-duplication, and reference; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the FEATHER 

RIVER AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT that effective October 6, 2014, the Board 

approves and adopts the proposed amendments to Regulation X, Rule 10.9 - Rice Straw 

Emission Reduction Credits and Banking to read in its entirety as set forth in Exhibit A of this 

resolution, attached hereto and made part hereof. 
Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to the State Implementation Plan. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Feather River Air Quality Management District at a 

meeting on October 6, 2014, by the following vote: 

AYES: Directors Griego, Nicoletti, Cleveland, Whiteaker, Baland Selvidge, Pendergraph, Dukes and Gallagher 

NOES: None 

ABSENT: Director Munger 

ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: APPROVED FOR LEGAL FORM 

ClTk of the District Board Dis&/;
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 131037 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, AFSCME COUNCIL 25, AFSCME LOCAL Justices 41, and JAMES FULLER, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

and

ANNIERLY COOPER and SADIE ADAMS, Plaintiffs,

v SC: 131037 COA: 257680 Wayne CC: 02-228994-CL CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 16, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

d0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
#### Stephen W. Millichamp, *Plaintiff in Error, v.*The People of the State of New York, *Defendants in Error*.

Conviction affirmed and case remitted to the Court of Sessions of Monroe county to proceed thereon. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
#### IN RE COMPLAINT AGAINST JOSEPH F. NARDIELLO, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

Submitted December 3, 1928

Decided January 16, 1929.

Before Justices Tbenchabd, Kalisch and Katzenbach.

Eor the applicant, *Jacob L. Newman.*

Peb Cubiam.

The petitioner was disbarred by the Supreme Court by rule entered January 17th, 1928. This application for a rehearing we think must be denied, for the reason, among others, that relief of the applicant should be obtained, if at all, by the procedure outlined in *In re Meyer,*127 *Atl Rep.*698, and *In re Harris,*88 *N. J. L.*18.

The petition will be denied, but without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take the course indicated in the cited cases.