alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1 - SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kenneth A. McCullum, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
     10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
     report on Form 10-K of Hartford Life Global Funding Trust 2006-086
     (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
     whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
     to state a material fact necessary in order 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 report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
     information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
     covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
     reports;

4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
     in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
     disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
     fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material
     respects;

5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
     for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
     assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
     securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
     Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have
     been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
     disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
     described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
     10-K.

In giving the certification above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

    The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., and its officers and agents

Date:  September 10, 2007


/s/ Kenneth A. McCullum

Kenneth A. McCullum
Senior officer in charge of securitization
Hartford Life Insurance Company, as depositor
21st Century Holding Company
   Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
                                   Operations

EXHIBIT 32.2

     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

      In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-Q of 21st  Century
Holding  Company  for the  quarter  ended  September  30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  I, James G. Jennings,  III,
Chief Financial Officer of 21st Century Holding Company, hereby 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 results of operations
            of 21st Century Holding Company.

By:  /s/ James G. Jennings, III
-----------------------------------------------
James G. Jennings, III, Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.427 Membrane tank system design. A membrane tank system must be designed for: ( a ) Any static and dynamic loads with respect to plastic deformation and fatigue;
( b ) Combined strains from static, dynamic, and thermal loads;
( c ) Preventing collapse of the membrane from: ( 1 ) Over-pressure in the interbarrier space;
( 2 ) Vacuum in the cargo tank;
( 3 ) Sloshing in a partially filled cargo tank; and
( 4 ) Hull vibrations; and
( d ) The deflections of the vessel's hull.
# C_2013046EN.01003003.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/30

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — Mileva v Commission

(Case F-101/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/188/10 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Composition of the selection board - Permanent and non-permanent members)

2013/C 46/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tzena Mileva (Paris, France) (represented: initially by E. Boigelot, lawyer, and subsequently by G. Generet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Application for the annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — INTERPRETERS for BULGARIAN (BG) not to include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition and application for damages for material and non-material damage.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Mileva to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Mileva to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 25.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 72 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1871]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services


Delegation of Authority

    Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Administrator 
of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the following 
authority vested in the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
    Subpoenas for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act of 1996 (HIPAA): Authority under Section 205(d) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(d)), with authority to redelegate, to issue 
subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 
production of any evidence that relates to any matter under 
investigation or compliance review for failure to comply with the 
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 
standards and requirements related at 45 CFR parts 160, 162 and 164 
(except to the extent they pertain to the standards for privacy of 
individually identifiable health information).
    Section 1176(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1320d-
5(a)(2), which provides authority for the imposition of civil money 
penalties (CMPs) for violations, makes section 1128A of the Social 
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a, applicable to the imposition of CMPs 
for violations of HIPAA administrative simplification standards. 
Section 1128A(j)(1), 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(j)(l), makes section 205(d) and 
(e) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(d) and (e), applicable to 
section 1128A as the subsections are with respect to Title II of the 
Social Security Act. Section 205(d) and (e) authorizes the issuance of 
subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 
production of any evidence that relates to any matter under 
investigation by the Secretary and the enforcement of such a subpoena 
in court in event of refusal to comply.
    This delegation shall be exercised under the Department's existing 
delegation of authority on the issuance of regulations and existing 
policy on the issuance of regulations.
    In addition, I hereby affirm and ratify any actions taken by the 
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or his 
subordinates which involved the exercise of the authority delegated 
herein prior to the effective date of this delegation.
    This delegation is effective immediately.

Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-1871 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-M
# C_2014409EN.01003801.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/38

---

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014 — Canon Europa v Commission

(Case T-34/11) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Customs Union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff subheadings - Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those subheadings - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissible))

2014/C 409/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Canon Europa NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul in part the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA.

| 3. | Canon Europa NV shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Canon Europa NV shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.

1

---
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

PI INNOVO, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14818 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

ADVANCED GREEN 

INNOVATIONS, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF #12) 

 On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff Pi Innovo, LLC (“Pi Innovo”) filed a motion 

requesting that the Court enter a default judgment against Defendant Advanced 

Green Innovations, LLC (“Advanced Green”) (the “Default Judgment Motion”). 

(See ECF #12.) The Court held a hearing on the Default Judgment Motion on June 

2, 2015. For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

the Default Judgment Motion is GRANTED with respect to liability only. The 

amount of damages shall be determined following a period of discovery. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 14, 2016 

2:14-cv-14818-MFL-MKM Doc # 33 Filed 03/14/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 362
2 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on March 14, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cv-14818-MFL-MKM Doc # 33 Filed 03/14/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 363
#### THOMAS E. ROBERTSON, PLAINTIFF, v. CUBA BROWN ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted January term, 1929

Decided April 19, 1929.

Before Justices Black, Campbell and Case.

Eor the rule, *Charles W. Weeks.*

*Contra, Jayne £ McCloskey.*

Pee Ctjeiam.

This action was-brought to recover compensation for personal injuries. The injuries sued for occurred to the plaintiff on July 30th, 1927, while he was riding a bicycle along Monmouth avenue, in the township of Lakewood. The defendant Cuba Brown was operating an auto truck belonging to the defendant Harry T. Theobold, which collided-"with, the plaintiff’s bicycle, causing the injuries complained of. Negligence of the defendants is alleged in the complaint.

The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $10,000. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause and writes down .seventeen reasons for the granting of a new trial. We find no substantial reason for disturbing the verdict of the jury. The rule to show cause is therefore discharged.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Statement Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned, Andrew Gordon is the President and Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive and Accounting Officer of Coffee Holding Co., Inc. (the Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2008 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

A)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

B)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Date:  January 28, 2009



| |                                                                                                                              
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ ANDREW GORDON                                                                                                            
| | Andrew Gordon                                                                                                                
| | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer)

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.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30117

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT TAYLOR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-53-2

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Robert Taylor has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Taylor has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
JUN 1 7 2016 

E K LINDE 

ORDER DECLINING TO IMPOSE TEMPORARY SUSPEN 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE OF No. 70439 

MATTHEW PAWLOWSKI, BAR NO. 

9889. FILE 

This is a petition under SCR 111 concerning attorney Matthew 

Pawlowski, who pleaded nob o contendere to a misdemeanor charge of 

driving under the influence. After completing certain conditions, the DUI 

conviction was reduced to misdemeanor reckless driving. The nobo 

contendere plea to the DUI charge triggered the requirements of SCR 111. 

See SCR 111(1), (2), (4). Pawlowski self-reported the conviction to the 

State Bar. Because the crime is not one of those specifically enumerated 

in SCR 111(6) as a "serious" crime, temporary suspension and referral to 

the disciplinary board are discretionary with this court. SCR 111(9). 

The seriousness of drinking and driving cannot be minimized, 

however, first offense driving under the influence is not the type of offense 

for which professional discipline is typically imposed. 2 Geoffrey C. 

Hazard, Jr., W. William Hodes, & Peter R. Jarvis, The Law of Lawyering, 

§ 69.04, at 69-13 (4th ed. 2015); In the Matter of Respondent I, 2 Cal. State 

Bar Ct. Rptr. 260, 266 n.6, 272 (Rev. Dept. 1993). And here, Pawlowski 

completed the conditions of his plea agreement and the charge was 

reduced to reckless driving. Accordingly, having considered the petition 

and supporting documentation, we conclude that Pawlowski's offense does 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A IL0 - goal_ 
not warrant the imposition of a temporary suspension or referral to a 

disciplinary board at this time. 

It is so ORDERED. 

J. 

Douglas 

cc: C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Walsh & Friedman, Ltd. 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I947A
# C_2011089EN.01002601.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/26

---

Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Present Service Ullrich v OHIM — Punt-Nou (babilu)

(Case T-66/11)

2011/C 89/50

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Present Service Ullrich Verwaltungs-GmbH (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: A. Graf von Kalckreuth, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Punt-Nou, SL (Ontynient, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2010 in case R 773/2010-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2010 in case R 773/2010-2;

| — | Dismiss the opposition against the applicant’s trade mark ‘babilu’ and declare that the trade mark ‘babilu’ should be registered for all the goods and services applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

Dismiss the opposition against the applicant’s trade mark ‘babilu’ and declare that the trade mark ‘babilu’ should be registered for all the goods and services applied for;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘babilu’, for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 35, 36, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7205305

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3363645 of the word mark ‘BABIDU’, for amongst others, services in class 35

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Accepted the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.

Pleas in law:

---
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.

§ 154.906 Inert gas generators. The inert gas generator must: ( a ) Produce an inert gas containing less than 5% oxygen by volume;
( b ) Have a device to continuously sample the discharge of the generator for oxygen content; and
( c ) Have an audible and visual alarm in the cargo control station that alarms when the inert gas contains 5% or more oxygen by volume.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****Section 1350 Certification**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Nextera Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date:August 11, 2006         By: /s/ Joseph J. Millin           President (Principal Executive Officer)The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.