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


In connection with the Annual Report of Long Island Physician Holdings
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Paul Kolker, 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 to 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/
--------------------------------
Paul Kolker,
President, Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer)
September 9, 2005


This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-K pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
§ 169.618 General. ( a ) Each vessel must have an effective steering system.
( b ) The steering system must be designed to withstand all anticipated loading while under sail, including shocks to the rudder. Additionally, the steering system on vessels with an auxiliary means of propulsion must not be susceptible to damage or jamming at the vessel's maximum astern speed.
( c ) The main steering gear must be capable of moving the rudder from hard-over to hard-over at an average rate of not less than 21 ⁄ 3° per second with the vessel at design service speed (ahead).
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1603]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Integrating Sensor-
Collected Intelligence will meet in closed session on April 17-18, 
2007; May 7-8, 2007; May 31-June 1, 2007; and July 19-20, 2007; at the 
Science Applications International Corporation, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, VA.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the 
sufficiency of support for U.S. military forces by current and planned 
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the 
meetings will be closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Charles Lominac, USAF Military 
Assistant, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, 
Washington, DC 20301-3140, via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddbeb5bcafb1b8aef3b1b2b0b4b3bcbeb19db2aeb9f3b0b4b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05666d64776960762b696a686c6b646669456a76612b686c69">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
via phone at (703) 571-0081.

    Dated: March 27, 2007.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-1603 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.72 Dangerous cargo manifest; exceptions. ( a ) No dangerous cargo manifest is required for— ( 1 ) Shipments by unmanned barge, except on an international voyage; and
( 2 ) Shipments of materials designated as potentially dangerous materials in Table 148.10 of this part.
( b ) When a dangerous cargo manifest is required for an unmanned barge on an international voyage, § 148.71(d) of this part does not apply, unless the barge has more than one cargo compartment.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Petitioner Larry Walthall, presently serving a term of life imprisonment in a Michigan 

correctional facility, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

(Dkt. 1.) Petitioner challenges his state court convictions for first degree murder and possession 

of a firearm during commission of a felony. The Court finds this is a successive habeas corpus 

petition and therefore orders it transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., an individual seeking to file a “second or successive” habeas petition must 

ask the appropriate court of appeals for an order directing the district court to consider the 

petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 641 (1998); In 

re Wilson, 142 F.3d 939, 940 (6th Cir. 1998). This requirement transfers to the court of appeals a 

screening function the district court previously performed. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664 

(1996).

LARRY WALTHALL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

JAMES R. CHYLINSKI, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 14-14908 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

ORDER TRANSFERRING SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION TO THE UNITED 

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

2:14-cv-14908-LJM-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 01/22/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 87
2

Petitioner challenged his convictions in three prior habeas actions. The first petition was 

denied on the merits. Walthall v. Stegall, No. 92 72577 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 26, 1993). The second 

petition was transferred to the Sixth Circuit. Walthall v. Stegall, No. 99 71382 (E.D. Mich. May 

30, 2000). The Sixth Circuit denied permission to file a second petition. In re: Larry Walthall,

No. 00 1628 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2000). The Sixth Circuit likewise denied Petitioner’s third attempt 

to file a habeas action. In re: Larry Walthall, No. 14-1127 (6th Cir. Sept. 29, 2014). Petitioner 

cannot proceed with this fourth attempt without first acquiring permission to file a successive 

habeas petition from the Court of Appeals. 

Therefore, the Clerk of Court is ORDERED to transfer the habeas petition to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.

s/Laurie J. Michelson

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: January 22, 2015 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the 

attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on January 22, 2015. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:14-cv-14908-LJM-PTM Doc # 4 Filed 01/22/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 88
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.

§ 161.011-5 Classes. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76703 , Sept. 18, 2024.
EPIRB's are classed as follows: ( a ) Class A—an EPIRB that has been type approved or type accepted by the FCC as a Class A EPIRB. These EPIRB's are capable of floating free of a vessel and activating automatically if the vessel sinks.
( b ) Class C—An EPIRB that has been type approved or type accepted by the FCC as a Class C EPIRB. These EPIRB's are manually activated and are not required to be Coast Guard approved.
[39 FR 10139, Mar. 18, 1974, as amended by CGD 80-024, 49 FR 40409, Oct. 16, 1984]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         178,245                 297,043
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,311,271               3,847,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                   392,772                 118,586
<INVENTORY>                                  9,905,986               7,276,961
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,697,922              12,123,819
<PP&E>                                       3,924,648               2,896,188
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,582,296               1,308,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,899,511              15,150,527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,099,210               2,994,966
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     5,040,719               4,873,319
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,899,511              15,150,527
<SALES>                                     38,118,596              24,076,192
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,118,596              24,076,192
<CGS>                                       32,859,045              19,368,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,859,045              19,368,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,922                   3,520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             514,690                 193,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,856,529)                821,316
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (561,154)               (325,506)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,295,375)              1,146,822
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,295,375)              1,146,822
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.42)                   0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.42)                   0.37
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donald E. Raby II, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pharmacy Buying
Association, 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 90 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
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      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; and

<PAGE>

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 18, 2003


/s/ Donald E. Raby II
---------------------
Donald E. Raby II
Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PARRISH REDD,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-14340

Hon. Marianne O. Battani

v.

 

TERRANCE VAILS, et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging copyright infringement in November

2014. The Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge R. Steven

Whalen for all pretrial proceedings. On March 27, 2015, Magistrate Judge Whalen

issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny

Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgment as to Chris Hugan and Marty Peters (See Doc.

Nos. 39, 43, 44, 45, 50).

 In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties

that objections to the R&R needed to be filed “within fourteen (14) days of service” and

that a party’s failure to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. (Doc. No.

51 at 4). No objection has been filed. 

Not only does the Court agree with the analysis and recommendations contained

in the R&R that the time for Defendants Peters and Hugan to file an answer had not

passed and there had been no entry of default, the Court adds that Hugan and Peters

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 57 Filed 04/21/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 330
timely answered the complaint after the R&R was filed. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 21, 2015 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their

respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on April 21, 2015.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-14340-MOB-RSW Doc # 57 Filed 04/21/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 331
# C_2012065EN.01000802.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/8

---

Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-682/11 P)

2012/C 65/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (represented by: J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 and grant the application made at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 and grant the application made at first instance;

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant challenges the General Court’s decision by which the action was dismissed as inadmissible for lack of direct concern.

The appellant maintains that the regulation at issue (1) (‘the Regulation’) is of direct concern to the appellant. This follows from the fact that even at the time of the Regulation’s adoption and before its entry into force, it was clear that the Member States concerned would, in practice, exercise the discretion conferred on them in the Regulation in only one way. The possibility that the Member States concerned or their respective authorities would decide otherwise is thus purely theoretical.

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1).

1

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

§ 164.111-3 Testing, marking, and inspection requirements. ( a ) Draperies, curtains, and other suspended textiles submitted for type approval must be tested for qualities of resistance to the propagation of flame not inferior to those of wool of mass 0.8 kg/m2 under Annex 1, Part 7, of the FTP Code (incorporated by reference, see § 164.111-2).
( b ) All testing and inspections required by this subpart must be performed by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter. A list of independent laboratories accepted as meeting subpart 159.010 of this chapter is available online at *http://psix.uscg.mil/EQLabs/Default.aspx*.
( c ) The independent laboratory must perform an initial factory inspection to select the test specimens and establish the materials of construction, chemical make-up, dimensions, tolerances, and other related factors needed to confirm product consistency during follow-up production inspections.
( d ) Production inspections must be performed by the independent laboratory in accordance with subpart 159.007 of this chapter at least annually to confirm that no changes have been made to the product that may adversely affect its fire performance as draperies, curtains and other suspended textiles.
( e ) The independent laboratory must prepare production inspection procedures and a report of the results of the fire testing program, and must furnish the manufacturer with three copies of each upon completion of the required testing.
( f ) Materials approved under this subpart must be shipped in packaging that is clearly marked with the name of the manufacturer, product designation, date of manufacture, batch or lot number, and Coast Guard type approval number.
§ 169.205 Obtaining or renewing a Certificate of Inspection. ( a ) A qualified organization attempting to obtain or renew a certificate of inspection for a vessel must submit to the Coast Guard Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection located in or nearest the port at which the inspection is to be made, the following— ( 1 ) An application for inspection on Form CG-3752; and
( 2 ) Evidence that the vessel has been designated as a sailing school vessel or an application for designation, as set forth in § 169.218; and
( 3 ) Information concerning the program's age and physical qualifications for students and instructors and the ratio of students to instructors.
( b ) The application for initial inspection of a vessel being newly constructed or converted must be submitted prior to the start of such construction or conversion.
( c ) The construction, arrangement and equipment of all vessels must be acceptable to the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, as a prerequisite of the issuance of the initial certificate of inspection. Acceptance will be based on the information, specifications, drawings and calculations available to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, and on the successful completion of an initial inspection for certification.
( d ) You must submit a written application for an inspection for certification to the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. To renew a Certificate of Inspection, you must submit an application at least 30 days before the expiration of the vessel's current certificate. Applications are available at any U.S. Coast Guard Sector Office or Marine Inspection Office. When renewing a Certificate of Inspection, you must schedule an inspection for certification within the 3 months before the expiration date of the current Certificate of Inspection.
( e ) The condition of the vessel and its equipment must be acceptable to the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, as a prerequisite of the certificate of inspection renewal. Acceptance will be based on the condition of the vessel as found at the inspection for certification.
[CGD 83-005, 51 FR 896, Jan. 9, 1986, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6507, Feb. 9, 2000; USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36330, July 2, 2007]
### Swanson, Brian (OST) From:

### S~nt'i To: 

### Subject: Carol Rodseth <rodseth@charter.net> Monday, August 13, 2012 10:51 AM Swanson, Brian (OST) Best choice for Brainerd air service 

# 3 2: I0

Please choose Skywest. I fly out of Brainerd frequently as a resident here. Skywest suits the needs ofour community betterthan the other options. Thank you. Carol Rodseth, 5880 Parkwood Court, Baxter, MN