alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Michael R. Kallet, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Eric E.
Stickels, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Oneida
Financial Corp. (the "Company"), each certify in his capacity as an officer of
the Company that he has reviewed the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 and that to the best of his/her
knowledge:

(6)   the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(7)   the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

   May 15, 2007                      /s/ Michael R. Kallet
-------------------                  --------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


   May 15, 2007                      /s/ Eric E. Stickels
-------------------                  --------------------------------------
Date                                       Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer

                                  Exhibit 32.1
# C_2011072EN.01002402.xml

| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/24

---

Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Bank Kargoshaei and Others v Council

(Case T-8/11)

2011/C 72/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Bank Kargoshaei, Bank Melli Iran Investment Company, Bank Melli Iran Printing and Publishing Company, Cement Investment & Development Co., Mazandaran Cement Company, Melli Agrochemical Company, Shomal Cement Co., (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque and S. Woog, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul paragraph 5, section B, of the annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (1) and paragraph 5, section B, of the annex to VIII of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (2) and annul the decision contained in the letter of the Council of 28 October 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul paragraph 5, section B, of the annex to Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (1) and paragraph 5, section B, of the annex to VIII of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (2) and annul the decision contained in the letter of the Council of 28 October 2010;

1

2

| — | declare Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision of 26 July 2010 (3) and Article 16(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) (EU) No 961/2010 illegal and inapplicable to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision of 26 July 2010 (3) and Article 16(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) (EU) No 961/2010 illegal and inapplicable to the applicants;

3

| — | order that the Council pay the applicants’ costs of this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Council pay the applicants’ costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on the pleas in law which are identical as the pleas in law relied on by the applicant in Case T-7/11, Bank Melli Iran v Council.

Bank Melli Iran

Council

---

(1)  OJ L 281, p. 81

1

(2)  OJ L 281, p. 1

2

(3)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP: of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ L 195, p. 39

3

---
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SARS Corporation, a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Alan Chaffee, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to their
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/ Alan
Chaffee


By: Alan
Chaffee


Its:
Interim Chief Financial Officer











Dated:
February 19, 2008





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
SARS Corporation and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
#### Ansley, agent, *v.*Farley.

Xtoipkin, J.

1. Under tlie decision in *Toole v. Edmondson,*104 Ga. 776, 783, if tlie amount in controversy in a suit in a justice’s court exceeds fifty dollars, and only a question of law is involved, and the nature of the ruling complained of is such as not to dismiss the case, the losing party may select one of three remedies: an appeal to a jury in the justice’s court, an appeal to the superior court, or a certiorari. If at the trial questions both of law and fact are raised, but the petition for certiorari only complains of the rulings which involve the questions of law, thus waiving the right to complain of rulings upon disputed questions of fact, certiorari is available as a remedy.

*:2.*In the present ease there was no conflict of evidence upon any material question; there was none at all on the subject of the plea to the juris*426diction; and while, among other assignments of error, it was said that each of the magistrate’s rulings was contrary to law and evidence and the weight of evidence, yet, when taken in connection with the above-mentioned fact, and the statement immediately following, that the “evidence as undisputed” demanded a finding in favor of the defendant, and that under the plaintiff’s own evidence such a judgment should have resulted, and the other assignments of error, the use of such expression did not authorize a dismissal of the petition for certiorari.

Argued May 28,

Decided August 9, 1906.

Certiorari. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. November 10, 1905.

*A. W. Stephens,*for plaintiff in error. *B. B. Blackburn,*contra.

3. In *Western*& *Atlantic R.*v. *Dyar,*70 *Ga.*723, the case involved less than fifty dollars, and also apparently involved contested questions of fact.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J.,*absent.
NON-CBI SUBMISSION 

SUP2010P2 

V. TEXT / DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES ICBI I [ ] 

This letter of support provides information on the chemical identification (PMN Part 1. Section B). 

Insert Attachment I
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.013-6 Production tests, inspections, and marking.

Manufacturers shall provide in-plant quality control of polyethylene foam in accordance with the requirements of § 164.019-13 and any requirements of the recognized laboratory. The manufacturer of the foam has primary responsibility for quality control over the production of the foam.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 21, 2018

No. 04-18-00048-CR

Jerry Louis ZULAICA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CR-10438

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The 

appellant’s brief is due on July 10, 2018.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0003145 28-FEB-2018 10:40 AM
#### § 167.45-80 Fire axes.

(a) All nautical school ships shall be provided with fire axes, as follows:

| | Number of axes |
| --- | --- |
| Gross tons of nautical school ships: | |
| All not over 50 tons | 1 |
| All over 50 tons and not over 200 tons | 2 |
| All over 200 tons and not over 500 tons | 4 |
| All over 500 tons and not over 1,000 tons | 6 |
| All over 1,000 tons | 8 |

(b) All fire axes shall be located so as to be readily found in time of need, shall not be used for general purposes, and shall be kept in good condition.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                                    AGREEMENT

Myoung-Jin Lee (hereinafter referred to as "Lee") and GRAVITY Co., Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as "GRAVITY") hereby enter into this agreement in
respect of the Ragnarok trademark:

1.   With respect to the trademark under Application No. 2002-1033 which shall
     be partially transferred by GRAVITY on June 3, 2003, the parties hereto
     shall acknowledge that they shall jointly hold rights to such trademark
     upon successful registration thereof.

2.   GRAVITY shall hold exclusive rights to use and transfer the trademark to be
     registered under Application No. 2002-1033.

3.   With respect to the trademark under Registration No. 0514714 which shall
     partially be transferred by Lee, on June 3, 2003, both parties acknowledge
     that they shall jointly hold rights to such trademark.

4.   GRAVITY shall have exclusive rights to use and transfer the trademark under
     Registration No. 0514714.

5.   Lee must obtain permission from GRAVITY before taking any action with
     respect to the rights to use and transfer the trademarks referred to in
     this agreement.


June 3, 2003

/seal/
Myoung-Jin Lee
Yonsei Heightsville No. 302, 501-24, Changcheon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul

/seal/
Jung Hwi Young
Representative Director, GRAVITY Co., Ltd.
Case 5:15-cv-11042-JCO-RSW ECF No. 13 filed 09/24/15 PageID.66 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-11042-JCO-RSW ECF No. 13 filed 09/24/15 PageID.67 Page 2 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-11042-JCO-RSW ECF No. 13 filed 09/24/15 PageID.68 Page 3 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-11042-JCO-RSW ECF No. 13 filed 09/24/15 PageID.69 Page 4 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-11042-JCO-RSW ECF No. 13 filed 09/24/15 PageID.70 Page 5 of 6
Case 5:15-cv-11042-JCO-RSW ECF No. 13 filed 09/24/15 PageID.71 Page 6 of 6
# C_2011269EN.01002502.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat (Austria) lodged on 8 June 2011 — Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk

(Case C-283/11)

2011/C 269/47

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundeskommunikationssenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sky Österreich GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Österreichischer Rundfunk

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 15(6) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (1) compatible with Articles 17 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Protocol No 1 to the ECHR)?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1.

1

---
#### § 144.710 Overnight accommodations.

Overnight accommodations must be provided for crewmembers if it is operated more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period, unless the crew is put ashore and the vessel is provided with a new crew.
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.

§ 154.1803 Expiration of Certificates of Compliance. ( a ) A Certificate of Compliance expires after a period not to exceed twenty-four months from the date of the examination under § 154.150.
( b ) If a vessel's IMO Certificate of Fitness expires or otherwise becomes invalid, its Certificate of Compliance becomes invalid for the carriage of cargoes listed in Table 4 of this part or authorized by special approval under § 154.12. To maintain the validity of the Certificate of Compliance, the vessel's owner must submit a copy of any revised or reissued IMO Certificate to Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center.
[CGD 81-052, 50 FR 8735, Mar. 5, 1985; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995; 60 FR 54106, Oct. 19, 1995]
§ 182.480 Flammable vapor detection systems. ( a ) A flammable vapor detection system required by § 182.410(c) must meet UL 1110 (incorporated by reference; see 46 CFR 175.600) or be approved by an independent laboratory.
( b ) Procedures for checking the proper operation of a flammable vapor detection system must be posted at the primary operating station. The system must be self-monitoring and include a ground fault indication alarm.
( c ) A flammable vapor detection system must be operational for 30 seconds prior to engine startup and continue sensing the entire time the engine is running.
( d ) A flammable vapor detection system must provide a visual and audible alarm at the operating station.
( e ) A sensor must be located above the expected bilge water level in the following locations: ( 1 ) The lowest part of a machinery space;
( 2 ) The lowest part of a space containing a fuel tank when separate from the machinery space; and
( 3 ) Any other location when required by the cognizant OCMI.
( f ) A flammable vapor detection system must be installed so as to permit calibration in a vapor free atmosphere.
( g ) Electrical connections, wiring, and components for a flammable vapor detection system must comply with part 183 of this chapter.
( h ) An operation and maintenance manual for the flammable vapor detection system must be kept onboard.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 986, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65209, Oct. 31, 2008]
## SMG Drones 2633 Lantana Road, Suite 12. Lantana Florida. 33468. (561) 891-7272. info@superskywords.com

PRE-FLIGHT CHECKLIST ✓ Check batteries with voltage meter to insure fully charged and ready for use. ✓ Inspect batteries for damage or leakage that may affect proper operation. ✓ Inspect propellers are mounted correctly. ✓ Inspect propellers for cracks, chips or damage that may result in sudden loss of propulsion or uncontrolled flight. ✓ Inspect dampening absorbers are in good condition; not broken or worn. ✓ Camera lens cap has been removed. ✓ Micro SD card has been inserted. ✓ Gimbal is functioning as normal. ✓ Check weather forecast for wind advisory or other conditions that may adversely impact flight. ✓ Check predetermined flight area for TFR, restrictions, etc. ✓ Check for NOTAMs for flight area. ‣ Contact respective airport towers to advise of estimated time of flight, estimated flight duration, flight location, estimated maximum altitude of flight and any other pertinent information. ‣ If required, inform local FAA FSDO ✓ Inspect flight area for: ‣ vicinity of medical helipads/heliports ‣ vicinity of light poles ‣ vicinity of trees ‣ flocks of birds that may cause interference and potential flight impact ‣ vicinity of any elevated obstructions that may pose potential flight hazard ‣ vicinity of roadways with moderate to heavy traffic that can be distracted ‣ public gatherings that may attract viewers ‣ optimal point of control for best sight of sUAS while in flight ✓ Takeoff and landing: ‣ Inspect area for best and safest point of takeoff and landing ‣ Set GPS failsafe home location to predetermined safe area ‣ If in a subdivision or an area that is within 150 feet of residential street, post warning sign(s) to inform bystanders - “Attention! Aerial Photography In Progress - Remain Back 150 Feet. Thank You.”

2633 Lantana Road, Suite 12. Lantana Florida. 33468. (561) 891-7272. info@superskywords.com 1FLIGHT PROTOCOL ✓ Takeoff and land from same predetermined safe area. ✓ Remain alert to birds, aircraft, curious public and approaching vehicles. ✓ PIC or Visual Observer will avoid any distractions during flight. ✓ Restrict flight to minimal altitude sufficient to acquire needed results. ✓ Remain prepared for emergency landing at all times. ✓ Pay attention to flight time and battery life percentage. ✓ Land sUAS and shut down propulsion immediately following landing.

POST-FLIGHT PROTOCOL (a) Disconnect battery to prevent accidental activation of propulsion system. (b) Secure sUAS in a safe location. (c) Remove all warning signs from public access areas. EMERGENCY or SUSPECTED HAZARD ✓ Immediately land the sUAS at the safest and closest ground location in the event of: ‣ a manned aircraft is heard or seen in vicinity of the sUAS. ‣ the PIC and/or the Visual observer is being distracted from focusing on the flight and safety. ‣ a sudden change in weather (thunderstorms and/or convective activity). ‣ birds entering the proximity of the flight. ‣ any sudden unsafe event that can cause collision, distraction or interruption of control.

2633 Lantana Road, Suite 12. Lantana Florida. 33468. (561) 891-7272. info@superskywords.com 2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Secure Blue, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alfonso Hernandez, Jr., President and Principal Accounting 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.

\s\       Alfonso Hernandez, Jr.Alfonso Hernandez, Jr.President

May 13, 2003

----
# C_2013189EN.01002101.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of two devices of crossing sickles)

(Case T-502/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing two devices of crossing sickles - Earlier national and international figurative marks representing two devices of ribbons - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 189/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC (Lyon, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, P. Péters and V. Wellens, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mundipharma AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2011 (Case R 1904/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC and Mundipharma AG

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO.  2-04-561-CR

DARRELL DEAN	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 1 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	On March 23, 2005, the trial court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal informed us that Appellant had not made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record.  On March 23, the trial court clerk informed us that Appellant had not made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record.  Therefore, we notified Appellant on March 23, 2005 that we would dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution unless he made arrangements by April 7, 2005 to pay for the reporter’s record and clerk’s record and provided us with proof of payment.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).  Appellant did not respond.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 19, 2005
§ 169.839 Firefighting equipment. ( a ) The master or person in charge shall ensure that the vessel's firefighting equipment is at all times ready for use and that all firefighting equipment required by the regulations in this subchapter is provided, maintained, and replaced as indicated.
( b ) The master or person in charge shall have performed at least once every 12 months the tests and inspections of all hand portable fire extinguishers, semiportable fire extinguishing systems, and fixed fire extinguishing systems on board as described in § 169.247 of this subchapter. The master or person in charge shall keep records of the tests and inspections showing the dates when performed, the number and/or other identification of each unit tested and inspected, and the name(s) of the person(s) and/or company conducting the tests and inspections. These records must be made available to the marine inspectors upon request and must be kept for the period of validity of the vessel's current certificate of inspection. Conducting these tests and inspections does not relieve the master or person in charge of his responsibility to maintain this firefighting equipment in proper condition at all times.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

VALERIE CASKEY

Plaintiff,

v.

FRONTLINE

ASSET 

STRATEGIES, LLC

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-14048-AJT-DRG

Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT COSTS OR 

FEES TO ANY PARTY

Plaintiff, by and through her attorney, Andrew L. Campbell, moves to dismiss Defendant 

Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC in the above action with prejudice and without costs or fees to 

any party. No answer has been filed in the above entitled matter.

Dated: January 6, 2015

/s/Andrew L. Campbell

Andrew L. Campbell

Attorney for Plaintiff

1000 Beach St, Suite B

Flint, MI 48502

(810) 232-4344

hundy24@yahoo.com

P64391

Case 2:14-cv-14048-AJT-DRG ECF No. 4 filed 01/06/15 PageID.12 Page 1 of 1