alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51409 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. DAWN MARIE COBB, KENNETH RYAN HAMANN Defendants - Appellants

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-141-2

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * A jury found that Dawn Marie Cobb and Kenneth Ryan Hamann, aided and abetted by each other, possessed equipment, chemicals, products and materials used to manufacture methamphetamine and opened, used, and maintained a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, and using methamphetamine. A jury also found that Harmann attempted to manufacture methamphetamine. Both Cobb and Harmann challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions, having adequately preserved theirNo. 04-51409 -2- challenge in district court. See United States v. Resio-Trejo , 45 F.3d 907, 911 n.6 (5th Cir. 1995) Viewing the evidence produced at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt Cobb’s and Hamann’s guilt as to each of the charged offenses.
See United States v. Villarreal , 324 F.3d 319, 322 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**I, Anthony A. Scalese, certify that: 1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of QualMark Corporation (the“small business issuer”);  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4.The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC release34-47986.]c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5.The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 30, 2007                                                                              /s/ Anthony A. Scalese   Anthony A. Scalese   Chief Financial Officer &
Exhibit 31.2

                                                             CERTIFICATION


I, Kelly L. Hankinson, Chief Financial Officer of Thinkpath Inc., certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Thinkpath Inc.;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
         untrue statement of a 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 quarterly report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
         information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
         material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
         cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
         this quarterly report;

4.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
         establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
         defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
         we have:

                  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
         that material information relating to the registrant, including its
         consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
         entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
         is being prepared;

                  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
         controls and procedures as of a date within 45 days prior to the filing
         date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
         the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
         our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
         on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the
         audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

                  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
         internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability
         to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

                  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
         management or other employees who have a significant role in the
         registrant's internal controls.


Date: May 21, 2004
                                                /S/ KELLY HANKINSON

                                                Kelly L. Hankinson
                                                Chief Financial Officer
§ 143.210 Alternate design or operational considerations. ( a ) Machinery or electrical systems of a novel design, unusual form, or special material that cannot be reviewed or approved in accordance with this part, may be approved by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center. It must be shown by systematic analysis, based on engineering principles, that the machinery or electrical equipment or system provides an equivalent level of safety. The owner or managing operator must submit detailed plans, material component specifications, and design criteria, including the expected towing vessel service and operating environment, to the Marine Safety Center. Examples of novel design include use of liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas, or propane fuel for propulsion, and hybrid, fuel cell, or battery propulsion.
( b ) Alternate arrangements or equipment to comply with this part may be approved in accordance with § 136.115 of this subchapter.
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.45-7 Shipping papers.

Each barge carrying dangerous cargo shall have on board a bill of lading, manifest, or shipping document giving the name of shipper, location of the loading point, and the kind, grade, and approximate quantity by compartment of each cargo in the barge. Such manifest or bills of lading may be made out by the shipper, master of the towing vessel, owner, or agent of the owner. However, in the case of unmanned barges the master of the towing vessel shall either have a copy of the shipping papers for each barge in his tow or he shall make an entry in the towing vessel's log book giving the name of the shipper, location where the barge was loaded, and the kind, grade, and quantity of cargo by compartment in the barge. The barge shall not be delayed in order to secure the exact quantities of cargo.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.021-1 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) The following is incorporated by reference into this subpart: ( 1 ) “The Universal Color Language” and “The Color Names Dictionary” in *Color: Universal Language and Dictionary of Names,* National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 440, December 1976.
( b ) NBS Special Publication 440 may be obtained by ordering from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 (Order by SD Catalog No. C13.10:440).
( c ) Approval to incorporate by reference the publication listed in this section was obtained from the Director of the Federal Register on November 1, 1979. The publication is on file at the Federal Register Library.
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



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, 2016 (the "Form 10-Q") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").



I, Tracey A. Welsh, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary and Treasurer 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 15, 2016



| | /s/ Tracey A. Welsh                                                    
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Tracey A. Welsh                                                        
| | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7917
MICHAEL ANTHONY EPPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DOCTOR STAMPLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-ct-03076-D) Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: May 16, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Epps, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Anthony Epps appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Epps v. North Carolina Dep’t of Corr. , No. 5:06-ct-03076-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 2006). We deny Epps’ motion to remand to file an amended complaint. 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 169.525 General. ( a ) Equipment for primary lifesaving apparatus must kept in good condition.
( b ) Lifeboats, inflatable liferafts and lifefloats must be fully equipped before the vessel is navigated and throughout the voyage.
( c ) No person may stow in any lifeboat, inflatable liferaft, or lifefloat any article not required by this subpart unless the article is authorized by the OCMI, in good working order, and properly stowed so as not to reduce the seating capacity, the space available to the occupants, or adversely affect the seaworthiness of the livesaving apparatus.
( d ) Loose equipment, except boathooks in lifeboats, must be securely attached to the lifesaving appliance to which it belongs.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-10278-JEL-RSW

JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address

68.40.60.2,

Defendant.

/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF JOHN DOE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, Plaintiff has settled this matter with John Doe 

(“Defendant”). Pursuant to the settlement agreement’s terms, Plaintiff hereby voluntarily 

dismisses Defendant from this action with prejudice. John Doe was assigned the IP address 

68.40.60.2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Defendant John Doe has neither answered 

Plaintiff’s Complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgment.

Consistent herewith Plaintiff consents to the Court having its case closed for 

administrative purposes.

Dated: March 23, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti

Paul J. Nicoletti

pauljnicoletti@gmail.com

NICOLETTI LAW, PLC

33717 Woodward Avenue, Suite #433

Birmingham, Michigan 48009

Phone: (248) 203-7800

Attorney for Plaintiff

5:15-cv-10278-JEL-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 03/23/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 46
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 23, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and that service was perfected on all counsel of 

record and interested parties through this system.

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti_______

Paul J. Nicoletti

5:15-cv-10278-JEL-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 03/23/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 47
# C_2011186EN.01003402.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/34

---

Action brought on 9 April 2011 — Honnefelder v European Commission

(Case F-42/11)

2011/C 186/64

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Stephanie Honnefelder (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bode, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annul the decision of the Commission not to include the applicant in the reserve list for selection procedure EPSO/AD/26/05

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the defendant of 11 February 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the defendant of 11 February 2011;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs;

| — | As an interim measure, judgment in default. |
| --- | --- |

—

As an interim measure, judgment in default.

---
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KSANDRA BRYANT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STEPHEN WILSON, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-10207 

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [29] AND DIRECTING 

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO PAY DEFENDANTS REASONABLE COSTS INCURRED IN 

FILING DISCOVERY MOTIONS

 On March 4, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for HIPAA Authorization and 

Protective Order [Dkt. #13]. On June 9, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to 

Compel [21]. On August 14, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order [24] 

granting both motions, finding Defendants entitled under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37 to an award of reasonable costs incurred in filing the motions, and 

directing Defendants to submit a bill of costs. Plaintiff did not appeal this Order. 

Defendants submitted a bill of costs on September 4, 2015. On October 5, 2015, 

the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation [29] recommending 

2:15-cv-10207-AJT-MKM Doc # 30 Filed 10/26/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 333
2 

that the Court award Defendants $2,225 in reasonable costs incurred in filing the 

discovery motions. Plaintiff filed no objection to the Report and Recommendation. 

 The Court having reviewed the record, the Report and Recommendation is 

hereby ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court, with 

the following exception: the Report and Recommendation recommended an award 

“payable by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.” The record suggests that it was the 

conduct of Plaintiff’s counsel, rather than the conduct of Plaintiff herself, that 

necessitated the filing of Defendants’ discovery motions. The Court will therefore 

make the award payable only by Plaintiff’s counsel. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel will pay Defendants $2,225 in 

reasonable costs incurred in filing Defendants’ discovery motions [13, 21]. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Arthur J. Tarnow 

Dated: October 26, 2015 Senior United States District Judge 

2:15-cv-10207-AJT-MKM Doc # 30 Filed 10/26/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 334
# C_2012287EN.01003902.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/39

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2012 — Formica v OHIM — Silicalia (CompacTop)

(Case T-82/11) (1)

1

2012/C 287/71

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

1

---
DAVID F. SHAYNE 

FAA OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL 

1601 LIND AVE., SW 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 

TELEPHONE: (425) 227-2\65 

FACSIMILE: (425)227-1007 

RECEIVED 

JUL 2 1 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Joseph D. Barbera FAA Case No. 2013NM090056 

Judge Richard Goodwin 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION TO THE ALJ'S "ORDER ON 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTIONS" 

On or about July 14, 2014, the ALJ served on the. parties the above-referenced Order 

essentially admonishing Respondent to comply with applicable procedural rules, and changing the 

discovery schedule. Neither of Complainant's substantive motions, (Motion for Reconsideration 

and Surmnary Judgment, filed on May 6, 2014), were addressed. 

Complainant hereby respectfully requests to be informed whether its motions are still under 

advisement or whether the parties should treat the above-referenced Order as a de facto denial 

thereof. 

Respectfully submitted this 15th day ofJuly 2014. 

FAA v. Joseph D. Barbera. 

Complainant's Motion for Clarification 

FAA Case No. 2013NM090056 

Page 1 of2 

DAVID F. SHAYNE. fAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425) 227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION has 

been served as designated by the recipient's name this date, to the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration-Facsimile and First Class Mail 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Fax: (202) 493-5142 

Joseph D Barbera- First Class and Return Receipt Requested Mail 

14706 NE Erickson Dr. 

La Center, W A 98629-4405 

Dated this 151

h day of July 2014. 

FAA v. Joseph D. Barbera. 

Complainant's Motion for Clarification 

FAA Case No. 2013NM090056 

Page 2 of2 

Terri Kirk 

Office of Regional Counsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

(425) 227-2007 

DAVID F. SHAYNE, FAA ATTORNEY 

TEL: (425)227-2165; FAX: (425) 227-1007
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.

§ 154.902 Atmospheric control within hold and interbarrier spaces. ( a ) Vessels certificated to carry flammable cargo in cargo containment systems with full secondary barriers must have an inert gas system or onboard storage of inert gas that provides enough inert gas to meet the requirements of § 154.1848 for 30 days consumption.
( b ) Vessels certificated to carry flammable cargo in cargo containment systems with partial secondary barriers must: ( 1 ) Have an inert gas system or onboard inert gas storage that can inert the largest hold and interbarrier space so that the oxygen concentration is 8 percent or less by volume; and
( 2 ) Meet paragraph (a) or (c)(2) of this section.
( c ) Vessels certificated to carry only nonflammable cargo in cargo containment systems with secondary barriers must: ( 1 ) Meet paragraph (a) of this section; or
( 2 ) Have air drying systems that reduce the dew point of air admitted to hold or interbarrier spaces below the temperature of any surface in those spaces or −45 °C (−49 °F), whichever is warmer.
( d ) Vessels with refrigerated independent tanks type C must have inert gas or air drying systems that reduce the dew point of any inert gas or air admitted to the hold spaces below the temperature of any surface in those spaces or −45 °C (−49 °F), whichever is warmer.
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58285, Sept. 29, 2014]
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.

§ 161.012-3 Definitions. ( a ) As used in this subpart, *PFD* means Coast Guard approved personal flotation device.
( b ) For the purpose of § 161.012-7, *storage life* means the amount of time after the date of manufacture of the power source of a light that the power source can be stored under typical marine environmental conditions on a vessel and still have sufficient power for the light to meet the requirements of § 161.012-9.