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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, J. Michael Lawrie, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report of Siebel Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Siebel Systems, Inc.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand
hereto as of the 11th day of February 2005.

|/s/ J. Michael LawrieChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive
      Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, Kenneth A. Goldman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report of Siebel Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Siebel Systems, Inc.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand
hereto as of the 11th day of February 2005.

|/s/ Kenneth A. GoldmanSenior Vice President, Finance
      andAdministration and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial
      Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K/A to which
it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Siebel Systems, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K/A),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. GABRIEL SALAS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 50201
D.C. No. 3:18

- cr - 00104

- LAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 15, 2019 **
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Gabriel Salas appeals from the district c ourt’s judgment and challenges the
151

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction u nder 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 50201

Salas contends that the district court misinterpreted and misapplied the minor role Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and its commentary in denying his request for a minor role reduction. We review the district court’s interpretation of the
Guidelines de novo and i ts application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Gasca

- Ruiz , 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The record reveals that the district court identified the correct legal standard
and considered the fiv e factors listed in the commentary before determining that Salas was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” See
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C). Contrary to Salas’s contention, the district
court properly compared Salas’s culpa bility to known and likely co

- participants in the offense and did not err by considering Salas’s criminal history in addition to the commentary’ s non - exhaustive factors

. See United States v. Quintero

- Leyva , 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[B]ecause th e factors set forth in the
Amendment are non

- exhaustive, a district court may also consider other reasons for granting or denying a minor role reduction.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the minor role adjustment in light of t he totality of the circumstances, including Salas’s prior successful drug crossings and the large amount of drugs Salas smuggled. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); Quintero

Leyva , 823 F.3d at 523.3 18

- 50201

Salas also contends that the sentence is substantively un reasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The low

- end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED

.
<PAGE>


                                  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

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of ComBanc, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Paul G. Wreede, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:

                         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
                             section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
                             Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


/s/ Paul G. Wreede
-----------------------------
Paul G. Wreede, President and Chief Executive Officer

October 27, 2004

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q 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 (the "Exchange Act"). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of the 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.
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




Certification of Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Pure Bioscience (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary Brownell, Chief Financial Officer 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 the
Company.

March 5, 2004                    /s/ Gary Brownell
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Gary Brownell
                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### § 108.659 Lifesaving signal instructions.

On all vessels to which this subpart applies, there must be readily available to the offshore installation manager, master, or person in charge a placard containing instructions for the use of the lifesaving signals set forth in regulation 16, chapter V, of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. These signals must be used by vessels or persons in distress when communicating with lifesaving stations and maritime rescue units.

[CGD 95-027, 61 FR 26008, May 23, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.050-20 Separator and bilge alarm test fluids. ( a ) Tests required in §§ 162.050-23 and 162.050-35 must be performed using the following three types of test fluids: ( 1 ) Test Fluid A, which is a marine residual fuel oil in accordance with ISO 8217 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.050-4), type RMG 380 (density at 15 °C not less than 980 kg/m3);
( 2 ) Test Fluid B which is a marine distillate fuel oil in accordance with ISO 8217, type DMA (density at 15 °C not less than 830 kg/m3);
( 3 ) Test Fluid C must be a mixture of an oil-in-fresh water emulsion, where 1 kg of the mixture consists of: ( i ) 947.8 g of fresh water;
( ii ) 25.0 g of Test Fluid A;
( iii ) 25.0 g of Test Fluid B;
( iv ) 0.5 g of surfactant (sodium salt of dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid) in the dry form; and
( v ) 1.7 g of iron oxides, a black ferrosoferric oxide (Fe3O4) with a particle size distribution of which 90 percent is less than 10 microns, the remainder having a maximum particle size of 100 microns.
( b ) Test Fluid C must be prepared as needed for § 162.050-23 or § 162.050-35 by using the following procedures: ( 1 ) Measure out 1.2 times the quantity of surfactant required from the WORKSHEET FOR DETERMINING CONSTITUENTS OF TEST FLUID C, see figure 162.050-20;
( 2 ) Mix it with fresh water and stir well in a small container to make a mixture until the surfactant has been thoroughly dissolved, but use no more than the minimum amount of water necessary to make a complete solution;
( 3 ) Fill clean test fluid tank with fresh water with a quantity 1.2 times the volume of the total quantity of water in Test Fluid C needed for the test described in §§ 162.050-23 and 162.050-35;
( 4 ) Operate the centrifugal pump B running at a speed of not less than 3,000 rpm with a flow rate at which the volume of the test fluid has been changed out at least once per minute;
( 5 ) Add the surfactant mixture from paragraph (b)(2) of this section first, followed by oil and suspended solids (iron oxides) respectively, both 1.2 times of the required amounts, to the fresh water in the tank;
( 6 ) To establish a stable emulsion keep running the centrifugal pump B for one hour and confirm no oil floats on the surface of the test fluid; and
( 7 ) After the one hour stated in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, keep running the centrifugal pump B at reduced speed to approximately 10 percent of original flow rate, until the end of the test.
FIGURE 162.050-20 [USCG-2004-18939, 74 FR 3385, Jan. 16, 2009]
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, 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 annual report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting;
  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; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
controls over financial reporting.
 Dated:  December __, 2009
    By:
    /s/ David Bruce HongDavid Bruce HongChief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, PETER 

ACKERMAN, GREEN PARTY OF THE 

UNITED STATES, and LIBERTARIAN 

NATIONAL COMMITTEE, INC. 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

 Defendant. 

 

Civil Action No.: 15-cv-1397 (TSC) 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 Plaintiffs Level the Playing Field, Peter Ackerman, the Green Party of the United States, 

and the Libertarian National Committee Inc., by their undersigned counsel, hereby move this 

Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment holding that the 

Federal Election Commission’s post-remand dismissals of Plaintiffs’ administrative complaints 

and denial of Plaintiff Level the Playing Field’s petition to open a rulemaking to revise the 

Commission’s debate staging regulations are contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, and that the Commission failed to 

conform with the Court’s prior declaration that, on remand, the FEC actually, carefully and 

thoroughly consider the full scope of Plaintiffs’ evidence. 

 Support for this motion is set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dated September 15, 2017; 

the Declaration of Eric S. Olney, dated September 15, 2017; the Affidavit of Douglas Schoen, 

dated September 13, 2017; and the administrative record, portions of which shall be submitted by 

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 83 Filed 09/15/17 Page 1 of 2
2 

the parties in a joint appendix pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(n). Plaintiffs’ requested relief is set 

forth in the accompanying Proposed Order. 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 7(f), an oral hearing is requested. 

Dated: September 15, 2017 

 New York, New York 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Alexandra A.E. Shapiro 

Alexandra A.E. Shapiro (D.C. Bar No. 438461) 

Eric S. Olney (admitted pro hac vice) 

SHAPIRO ARATO LLP 

500 Fifth Avenue 

40th Floor 

New York, New York 10110 

Phone: (212) 257-4880 

Fax: (212) 202-6417 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Level the Playing Field, 

Peter Ackerman, Green Party of the United States, 

and Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 83 Filed 09/15/17 Page 2 of 2
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.

Editorial Note on Subpart 151.50 of Part 151
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart 151.50 of part 151 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, and CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996.

§ 151.50-79 Methyl acetylene-propadiene mixture. ( a ) The composition of the methyl acetylene-propadiene mixture at loading must be within one of the following sets of composition limits: ( 1 ) Composition 1 is: ( i ) Maximum methyl acetylene to propadiene molar ratio of 3 to 1;
( ii ) Maximum combined concentration of methyl acetylene and propadiene of 65 mole percent;
( iii ) Minimum combined concentration of propane, butane, and isobutane of 24 mole percent, of which at least one-third (on a molar basis) must be butanes and one-third propane; and
( iv ) Maximum combined concentration of propylene and butadiene of 10 mole percent.
( 2 ) Composition 2 is: ( i ) Maximum methyl acetylene and propadiene combined concentration of 30 mole percent;
( ii ) Maximum methyl acetylene concentration of 20 mole percent;
( iii ) Maximum propadiene concentration of 20 mole percent;
( iv ) Maximum propylene concentration of 45 mole percent;
( v ) Maximum butadiene and butylenes combined concentration of 2 mole percent;
( vi ) Minimum saturated C4 hydrocarbon concentration of 4 mole percent; and
( vii ) Minimum propane concentration of 25 mole percent.
( b ) A barge carrying a methyl acetylene-propadiene mixture must have a refrigeration system that does not compress the cargo vapor or have a refrigeration system with the following features: ( 1 ) A vapor compressor that does not raise the temperature and pressure of the vapor above 60 °C (140 °F) and 1.72 MPa gauge (250 psig) during its operations, and that does not allow vapor to stagnate in the compressor while it continues to run.
( 2 ) At the discharge piping from each compressor stage or each cylinder in the same stage of a reciprocating compressor: ( i ) Two temperature actuated shutdown switches set to operate at 60 °C (140 °F) or less;
( ii ) A pressure actuated shutdown switch set to operate at 1.72 MPa gauge (250 psig) or less; and
( iii ) A safety relief valve set to relieve at 1.77 MPa gauge (256 psig) or less anywhere except into the compressor suction line.
( c ) The piping system, including the cargo refrigeration system, for tanks to be loaded with methyl acetylene-propadiene mixture must be completely separate from piping and refrigeration systems for other tanks. If the piping system for the tanks to be loaded with methyl acetylene-propadiene mixture is not independent, the required piping separation must be accomplished by the removal of spool pieces, valves or other pipe sections and the installation of blank flanges at these locations. The required separation applies to all liquid and vapor piping, liquid and vapor vent lines and any other possible connections, such as common inert gas supply lines.
[CGD 80-001, 46 FR 63279, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58284, Sept. 29, 2014]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### African Development Foundation

      ( print page 18457)    

# Meeting:

African Development Foundation, Board of Directors Meeting. 

# Time:

Tuesday, April 24, 2007, 8:45 a.m. to 1 p.m. 

# Place:

African Development Foundation, Conference Room, 1400 I Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005. 

# Date:

Tuesday, April 24, 2007. 

# Status: 

1. Open session, April 24, 2007, 8:45 a.m. to 12 p.m.; and, 

2. Closed session, April 24, 2007, 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. 

                        Due to security requirements and limited seating, all individuals wishing to attend the open sessions of the meeting must notify Doris Martin, General Counsel, at (202) 673-3916 or                         *mrivard@usadf.gov*                         of your request to attend by 9 a.m. on Wednesday, April 18, 2007.                     

Rodney J. MacAlister, 

President. 

[FR Doc. 07-1840 Filed 4-10-07; 3:10 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6117-01-P
# C_2012065EN.01002401.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/24

---

Action brought on 16 December 2011 — ZZ v European Medicines Agency

(Case F-135/11)

2012/C 65/45

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 30 May 2011 by which EMA refused to examine whether it was possible to renew the applicant’s contract; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 30 May 2011 by which EMA refused to examine whether it was possible to renew the applicant’s contract;

| — | Order EMA to pay the applicant, subject to increase, EUR 1 provisionally; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EMA to pay the applicant, subject to increase, EUR 1 provisionally;

| — | Order EMA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EMA to pay the costs.

---