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

** **

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Park Place Entertainment Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Wallace R. Barr, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledgeand belief:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Dated the 14th day of  August 2003     |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |
|                                   |
| /s/ WALLACE R. BARR                    |   |
| Wallace R. Barr                        |
| President and Chief Executive Officer, |
| Park Place Entertainment Corporation   |

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.009-17 Density measurement. ( a ) The measurements described in this section are made to determine the density of a sample.
( b ) If the sample is a solid material, a specimen that has a length of 305 mm, a width of 305 mm, and thickness equal to that of the sample is prepared. The length and width are measured to the nearest 0.80 mm and the thickness to the nearest 0.25 mm. Allowance is made for any irregularity in the surfaces of the specimen. The average of at least four measurements of each dimension is determined.
( c ) If the sample is fibrous insulation, a specimen is prepared from sheets of the sample submitted. The sample is a cube and each dimension is 305 mm ±1.60 mm. The average of at least four measurements of each dimension is determined.
( d ) The weight of a specimen is determined with a sensitive balance scale accurate to at least 0.5 percent of the weight of the specimen.
( e ) The dimension and weight measurements of a specimen are made after it has been conditioned for at least one week, and for any additional time needed for the specimen to reach a constant weight, in an atmosphere that is 22.8 °C. ±2 °C. and 50 percent ±5 percent relative humidity.
§ 169.253 Miscellaneous systems and equipment. ( a ) At each inspection for certification and periodic inspection all items in the ship's outfit, such as ground tackle, navigation lights, compass, etc., which are required to be carried by the regulations in this subchapter are examined and tested as necessary to determine that they are fit the service intended.
( b ) Approved work vests, where carried, are inspected as provided in § 169.556.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6508, Feb. 9, 2000]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.073-10 Construction and performance. ( a ) The link must be constructed essentially as shown in figure 160.073-10. The link must be formed from a single salt water corrosion-resistant wire. A loop at least 50 mm (2 in.) in diameter must be provided at each end of the wire. Each loop must be permanently secured.
( b ) The breaking strength of each link must be between: ( 1 ) 450 N (100 lb.) and 600 N (134 lb.) for links intended for life floats and buoyant apparatus of 10 persons and less capacity.
( 2 ) 900 N (200 lb.) and 1200 N (268 lb.) for links intended for life floats and buoyant apparatus of 11 to 20 persons capacity.
( 3 ) 1800 N (400 lb.) and 2400 N (536 lb.) for links intended for life floats and buoyant apparatus of 21 persons and more capacity.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Cindy Charrette, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-cv-10930 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

Mag. Judge David R. Grand 

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [17] IN FULL, 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [15], DENYING THE 

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [16], AND REMANDING TO THE 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

 This is a Social Security appeal. Before the Court is Magistrate 

Judge Grand’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 17) recommending 

the Court grant in part and deny in part plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment (Dkt. 15), deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

(Dkt. 16), and remand to the Administrative Law Judge for further 

proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The 

parties were required to file specific written objections within fourteen 

5:15-cv-10930-JEL-DRG Doc # 18 Filed 09/01/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 607
2 

days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). No 

objections were filed. Accordingly, and on review of the Report and 

Recommendation, 

 The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 17) is adopted in full. 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 15) is GRANTED IN 

PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment (Dkt. 16) is DENIED. The case is remanded to the 

Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings consistent with the 

Report and Recommendation. 

The Court emphasizes that the Administrative Law Judge should 

consider the records (as well as any other records available at that time) 

noted in the Report and Recommendation’s footnote 9. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 1, 2016 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

5:15-cv-10930-JEL-DRG Doc # 18 Filed 09/01/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 608
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 1, 2016. 

s/Kelly Winslow for 

FELICIA M. MOSES 

Case Manager 

5:15-cv-10930-JEL-DRG Doc # 18 Filed 09/01/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 609
CERTIFICATION OF CFO PER SECTION 906


EX-32.2


CERTIFICATE 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 Current Report of Crystal International, Travel Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 8K/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Gallic, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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.
 
 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.
 /s/ Peter Gallic---------------------------------Chief Financial Officer
 January 16, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Kenneth Williams,

Case Number 14-12755

Plaintiff, 

vs. District Judge Marianne O. Battani

 

Thomas Birkett, et al, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCKET NO. 7)

This is a prisoner civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court

is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (docket no. 6). This Court believes that 

appointment of counsel at this stage of the litigation is unwarranted. 

Appointment of counsel for prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis is governed by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915, which states that “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to

afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The Sixth Circuit has stated: 

Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. 

It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances. 

In determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, courts

have examined the type of case and the abilities of the plaintiff to

represent himself. This generally involves a determination of the

complexity of the factual and legal issues involved.

Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations and citations

omitted). See also Glover v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 264, 268 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Charles R. Richey,

Prisoner Litigation in the United States Courts 75 (1995)(“‘Prisoners have no statutory right to

counsel in civil rights cases. Instead, the appointment of counsel is within the court's discretion.’”). 

At this time, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff. 

2:14-cv-12755-MOB-MKM Doc # 12 Filed 12/09/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 96
Plaintiff has adequately alleged the claims forming the basis of this § 1983 lawsuit indicating his

basic understanding of the legal process. Accordingly, Plaintiff William’s Motion for Appointment

of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date of

this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated: December 9, 2014 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

 MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Kenneth Williams and Counsel

of Record on this date.

Dated: December 9, 2014 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

-2-

2:14-cv-12755-MOB-MKM Doc # 12 Filed 12/09/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 97
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 Quarterly Report of First Capital, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William W. Harrod, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                      |  |     |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|DATE: August 12, 2008 |  | BY: |  | /s/ William W. Harrod                
|                      |  |     |  | William W. Harrod                    
|                      |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2226 

To rescind certain funds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2009 

Mr. TURNER (for himself, Mrs. SCHMIDT, and Mr. BOEHNER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To rescind certain funds. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Warren County Na5 tional Debt Reduction Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

7 The purpose of this bill is to ensure that stimulus 

8 funding, which was rejected by the Warren County Ohio 

9 Board of Commissioners on March 17, 2009, because it 

10 was not needed, is returned to the treasury to reduce the 

11 national debt to be inherited by future generations. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2226 IH

1 SEC. 3. RESCISSION. 

2 There is hereby rescinded $373,000 to be derived 

3 from the amount apportioned to the State of Ohio under 

4 section 5311 of title 49, United States Code, and made 

5 available from division A of title XII of Public Law 111– 

6 5, under the heading ‘‘Federal Transit Administration, 

7 Transit Assistance’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
§ 170.270 Door design, operation, installation, and testing. ( a ) Each Class 1 door must have a quick action closing device operative from both sides of the door.
( b ) Each Class 1 door on a vessel in ocean service must be designed to withstand a head of water equivalent to the depth from the sill of the door to the margin line but in no case less than 10 feet (3.05 meters).
( c ) Each Class 2 and Class 3 door must— ( 1 ) Be designed, constructed, tested, and marked in accordance with ASTM F 1196 (incorporated by reference, see § 170.015);
( 2 ) Have controls in accordance with ASTM F 1197 (incorporated by reference, see § 170.015); and
( 3 ) If installed in a subdivision bulkhead, meet Supplemental Requirements Nos. S1 and S3 of ASTM F 1196 (incorporated by reference, see § 170.015), unless the watertight doors are built in accordance with plans previously approved by the Coast Guard, in which case, only Supplemental Requirements Nos. S1 and S3.1.4 of ASTM F 1196 (incorporated by reference, see § 170.015) must be met. In either case, control systems for watertight doors must have power supplies, power sources, installation tests and inspection, and additional remote operating consoles in accordance with Supplemental Requirements Nos. S1 through S4 of ASTM F 1197 (incorporated by reference, see § 170.015).
( d ) Installations of sliding watertight door assemblies must be in accordance with the following: ( 1 ) Before a sliding watertight door assembly is installed in a vessel, the bulkhead in the vicinity of the door opening must be stiffened. Such bulkhead stiffeners, or deck reinforcement where flush deck door openings are desired, must not be less than 6 inches nor more than 12 inches from the door frame so that an unstiffened diaphragm of bulkhead plating 6 to 12 inches wide is provided completely around the door frame. Where such limits cannot be maintained, alternative installations will be considered by the Marine Safety Center. In determining the scantlings of these bulkhead stiffeners, the door frame should not be considered as contributing to the strength of the bulkhead. Provision must also be made to adequately support the thrust bearings and other equipment that may be mounted on the bulkhead or deck.
( 2 ) Sliding watertight door frames must be either bolted or welded watertight to the bulkhead. ( i ) If bolted, a suitable thin heat and fire resistant gasket or suitable compound must be used between the bulkhead and the frame for watertightness. The bulkhead plating must be worked to a plane surface in way of the frame when mounting.
( ii ) If welded, caution must be exercised in the welding process so that the door frame is not distorted.
( e ) For each watertight door which is in a required subdivision bulkhead, an indicator light must be installed in the pilothouse and at each other vessel operating station from which the door is not visible. The indicator must show whether the door is open or closed.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51010, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 88-032, 56 FR 35828, July 29, 1991; CGD 85-080, 61 FR 944, Jan. 10, 1996; USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58464, Sept. 29, 2000]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.050-6 Marking. ( a ) Each ring buoy must have the following information in waterproof lettering: Type IV Personal Flotation Device. Inspected and tested in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations. (Name of buoyant material) buoyant material provides a minimum buoyant force of (32 lb. or 161 ⁄ 2 lb.). Approved for use on recreational boats only as a throwable device. U.S. Coast Guard Approval No. 160.050/(assigned manufacturer's No.)/(Revision No.); (Model No.). (Name and address of manufacturer or distributor). (Size). USCG (Marine Inspection Office identification letters). (Lot No.).
( b ) A method of marking that is different from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section may be given consideration by the Coast Guard.
[CGD 72-163R, 38 FR 8120, Mar. 28, 1973, as amended by CGD 75-186, 41 FR 10437, Mar. 11, 1976; CGD 75-008, 43 FR 9771, Mar. 9, 1978; 43 FR 10913, Mar. 16, 1978; CGD 92-045, 58 FR 41608, Aug. 4, 1993; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51214, Sept. 30, 1997]
###### Editorial Note on Part 162

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 162.060-36 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) requirements.

The approval testing and evaluation process must contain a rigorous Quality Assurance and Quality Control program consisting of a QAPP developed in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), as amended ISO/IEC 17025:2005/Cor.1:2006(E) (incorporated by reference, *see* § 162.060-5). The independent laboratory performing approval tests and evaluations is responsible for ensuring the appropriate Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures are implemented.
# **Exhibit 23.1**

#  

# CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

#  

Tothe Board of Directors

NorthernCalifornia Bancorp Inc.

Monterey,California

 

We herebyconsent to the use in the 10-KSB for the Northern California Bancorp Inc. ofour report dated February 14, 2007 relating to the financial statements of theNorthern California Bancorp Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and for thethree years then ended.

 

 
| /s/  Hutchinson and Bloodgood, LLP |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Watsonville,  California           |
| March  22, 2007                    |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7512

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OWEN ODMAN, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Sld Dft 1,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (4:96-cr-00053-MR-1; 1:04-cv00044-MR)

Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Owen Odman, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, 

Adam Christopher Morris, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Owen Odman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Odman 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 before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 176.655 Hull examination reports. ( a ) If you use only divers for the underwater survey portion of the Alternative Hull Examination (AHE), you must provide the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), with a written hull examination report. This report must include thickness gauging results, bearing clearances, a copy of the audio and video recordings, and any other information that will help the OCMI evaluate your vessel for a credit hull exam. The third party examiner must sign the report and confirm the validity of its contents.
( b ) If you use an underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) as the predominate means to examine the vessel's underwater hull plating, you must provide the OCMI with a report in a format that is acceptable to the OCMI, per § 176.650(b) of this part.
( c ) The OCMI will evaluate the hull examination report and grant a credit hull exam if satisfied with the condition of the vessel. If approved and you exclusively use divers to examine the hull plating, you will receive a credit hull exam of up to 36 months. (Underwater examinations are required twice every 5 years.) If approved and you use an underwater ROV as the predominate means to examine the hull plating, you will receive a credit hull exam of up to 60 months (5 years).
( d ) At least 60 days prior to each scheduled underwater exam, the owner may request a waiver from the OCMI if: ( 1 ) A satisfactory exam has been completed within the last three years;
( 2 ) The conditions during the last exam allowed at least 80 percent of the bottom surface to be viewed and recorded; and
( 3 ) The results of the last exam indicated that an extended interval is safe and reasonable.
[USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21086, Apr. 29, 2002, as amended at 69 FR 47384, Aug. 5, 2004]
# C_2013071EN.01002704.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/27

---

Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

(Case T-125/11) (1)

1

2013/C 71/44

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---