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








**Certification
      Pursuant to**


**Exchange
      Act Rule 15d-14(b) and**


**18
      U.S.C. Section 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Astrata Group Incorporated
      (the ”Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Martin Euler, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange
      Act
      Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|i. | The
              report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
              of
              the Securities Exchange Act 1934; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|ii. | The
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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 Astrata Group Incorporated and will be
      retained by Astrata Group Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






Dated:
      July 23, 2007       /s/
      MARTIN EULER


Name:
      Martin Euler


Title:
      Chief Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer
§ 183.350 Batteries—general. ( a ) Where provisions are made for charging batteries, there must be natural or induced ventilation sufficient to dissipate the gases generated.
( b ) Each battery must be located as high above the bilge as practicable, secured to protect against shifting with the roll and pitch of the vessel, and free from exposure to water splash or spray.
( c ) Batteries must be accessible for maintenance and removal.
( d ) Connections must be made to battery terminals with permanent type connectors. Spring clips or other temporary type clamps are prohibited.
( e ) Batteries must be mounted in trays lined with, or constructed of, a material that is resistant to damage by the electrolyte.
( f ) Battery chargers must have an ammeter connected in the charging circuit.
( g ) If the batteries are not adjacent to a distribution panel or switchboard that distributes power to the lighting, motor, and appliance circuits, the battery lead must have a fuse in series as close as practicable to the battery.
( h ) Batteries used for engine starting are to be located as close as possible to the engine or engines served.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 997, Jan. 10, 1996; 61 FR 20557, May 7, 1996]
#### In the Matter of John Lansing, Receiver of Anna M. O’Dougherty.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, payable out of the fund in the receiver’s hands. Opinion by

Maoomber, J.
<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

     This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the
"Form 10-QSB") of Community Shores Bank Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Tracey A. Welsh, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of the Issuer, certify that to my knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
          78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.


Dated: November 14, 2007

                                        /s/ Tracey A. Welsh
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Tracey A. Welsh
                                        Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
                                        Officer and Treasurer
<PAGE>
 
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                            AXENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                1996          1997          1998
                                            ------------  -------------  -----------
<S>                                         <C>           <C>            <C>
 
Income (loss) from continuing operations..  $ 5,086,000   $(18,870,000)  $ 7,679,000
Income from discontinued operations.......    2,395,000        255,000            --
                                            -----------   ------------   -----------
Net income (loss).........................  $ 7,481,000   $(18,615,000)  $ 7,679,000
                                            ===========   ============   ===========
Weighted average number of common
shares outstanding........................   21,575,000     22,638,000    25,990,000
 
Net income (loss) per common share
 and common share equivalents (diluted):
Continuing operations.....................  $      0.24   $      (0.83)  $      0.30
Discontinued operations...................         0.11           0.01            --
                                            -----------   ------------   -----------
                                            $      0.35   $      (0.82)  $      0.30
                                            ===========   ============   ===========
 
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  LYCOS, INC.
COMPUTATION OF SHARES USED IN COMPUTING BASIC AND DILUTED NET LOSS PER SHARE (1)



<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                           YEAR ENDED JULY 31,
                             ===============================================
                                  1998             1997            1996
                             -------------   --------------   -------------- 
                               (restated)

<S>                          <C>             <C>              <C> 
Net loss..................   $ (28,439,484)  $   (6,619,190)  $   (5,087,838)

BASIC AND DILUTED NET LOSS
  PER SHARE (2):
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding......      30,932,982       27,589,486       23,984,830
                             -------------   --------------   --------------

Shares used in computing
  per share amount........      30,932,982       27,589,486       23,984,830
                             =============   ==============   ==============

Basic and Diluted net loss
  per share...............   $       (0.92)  $        (0.24)  $        (0.21)
                             =============   ==============   ==============
</TABLE> 

(1) Diluted net loss per share has not been separately presented, as the amounts
    would not be materially different from basic net loss per share.

(2) On June 10, 1998, 2,250,000 of the Company's shares were sold under a 
    registration statement filed with the Securities Exchange Commission, filed
    on May 15, 1998. Of the 2,250,000 shares sold, 2,000,000 shares were sold by
    the Company and 250,000 were sold by CMG Information Services, Inc.
    ("CMGI"). The Company did not receive any proceeds from the sale of shares
    by CMGI. Proceeds to the Company were approximately $95 million, before
    deduction of expenses payable by the Company, estimated at $350,000. The
    Underwriters exercised an option to purchase 337,500 additional shares of
    Common Stock, resulting in additional proceeds to the Company of
    approximately $16 million.
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of L.A.M. Pharmaceutical Corp.(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Joseph T.Slechta, the President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officerand Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of his knowledge:
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects the financial condition and results of theCompany.        November 11, 2004 By:  /s/ Joseph T. Slechta    Joseph T. Slechta, President, Chief    Executive Officer, Principal FinancialOfficer and Chief Accounting Officer
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TIMOTHY KEITH, DIVISION ONE No. 70931-3-1 Appellant,

v. AMANDA JAMISONRespondent. S wo UNPUBLISHED OPINION £ TMo —< o-n -ti *"*'; 

# FILED: MAY 182015 5 ^§°sir

### Per Curiam — Timothy Keith, appearing pro se, appeals an order of .11 ^s contempt imposing a sanction of$1,000 inattorney fees. He contends the order should be reversed because the notice ofhearing below did not comply with 

### SCLCR 6(d)(1)1 and he therefore "did not have propertime to respond" to the motion for contempt. Assuming without deciding thatthe order is appealable as 

### a matter ofright,2 Keith fails to demonstrate reversible error. A violation ofthe notice requirements for motion hearings is grounds for reversal only upon a showing ofprejudice. O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 183 Wn. 

### App. 15, 22, 332 P.3d 1099 (2014) (addressing CR 6(d)(1)); Zimnv v. Lovric. 59 Wn. App. 737, 740, 801 P.2d 259 (1990). Keith failed to demonstrate prejudice or request a continuance below. He merely stated that he received notice ofthe 

### hearing "on Monday . . . , which only gave me four days [to prepare forthe hearing] and Ithought ithad to be nine to fourteen days but Iguess that's beside
1The rule provides in part: "Notes for the Motion Calendar shall be filed with the clerk of the court and served on all parties at least nine (9) court days before the hearing." 2See Inre Marriage ofWaaner. 111 Wn. App. 9, 15-16, 44 P.3d 860 (2002) ("An adjudication ofcontempt is appealable if it is a final orderorjudgment; i.e., the contumacy—the party's willful resistance to the contempt order—is established, and the sanction is a coercive one designed to compel compliance with the court's order.").No. 70931-3-1/2 

### the point." Report ofProceedings (Aug. 30, 2013) at 7. For the firsttime on 

### appeal, Keithclaims that he was prejudiced bythe late notice.3 We need not consider arguments made for the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5(a). Affirmed. FOR THE COURT:

3He claims he "was up until4:00 a.m. trying to put together his response which did not contain any proper legal points and or arguments, just his story and or babbling ofwhat took place." Appellant's Br. at 1-2.
EXHIBIT 10.29

(The Attaching Clause need be completed only when this endorsement is issued
subsequent to preparation of the policy.)
                                                                          GU 207
                                                                          (6-78)

                                   ENDORSEMENT
                                   #1 REVISED

This endorsement, effective on 12/31/97      at 12:01 A.M. standard time, forms
                                             a part of

Policy No. NXS0133598-00                     of the Reliance Insurance Company
                                             of Illinois

Issued to The Vincam Group, Inc. Et al.

                                             /s/ [SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE]
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Authorized Representative

It is agreed that IRM #3, Insured, is extended to include the following:
The Vincam Group, Inc.
Vincam Human Resources, Inc.
Vincam Human Resources, Inc. I
Vincam Human Resources, Inc. II
Vincam Human Resources, Inc. III
Vincam Human Resources, Inc. IV
Vincam Human Resources, Inc. V
Vincam Human Resources, Inc. VI
Vincam Human Resources, Inc. VII
Vincam Human Resources, Inc. of Michigan
Psych/Care, Inc.
Vincam Occupational Health Systems, Inc.
Vincam Insurance Services, Inc.
American Pediatrics Systems, Inc.
Vincam Practice Management, Inc.
CP Investments, Inc.
Vincam/Staff Administrators, Inc. of Colorado (DBA: Vincam Human Resources,
   Inc.)
Vincam/Staff Administrators, Inc. of California (DBA: Vincam Human Resources,
   Inc.)
Vincam/Staff Administrators, Inc. of Western Colorado (DBA: Vincam Human
   Resources)
American Staffing, Inc.
Vincam/Amstaff, Inc.
Amstaff HR Services, Inc.
R.D.M., Inc.
American Staffing, Inc.
Mastiff PEO, Inc.
Mastiff H.R.M., Inc.
Mastiff Management Services, Inc.
Mastiff Professional Services, Inc.
Mastiff Employer Resources, Inc.
Mastiff P.C.S., Inc.
A.E. Services Group, Inc.
Staff Resources Services, Inc.
Staffing Group Enterprises, Inc.
AM Risk Management Company
Addison, Inc.
ATCO PEO, Inc.
Vincam/Staffing Network, Inc. (DBA: Staffing Network, Inc. a Vincam Group
   Company)
Corporate Staff Services, Inc.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 oftheSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of UniversalAccess Global Holdings Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.**

 

 
| Dated:  August 16, 2004 | /S/ Daniel M. Bresingham                 |   |
|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   | Name: Daniel M. Bresingham               |
|                                   | Title: Principal Financial Officer  |

 

1

----
SUPREME COURT.

#### In the Matter of the Petition of Eugene Keteltas to Vacate an Assessment for Curb, Gutter and Flagging.

*General Term, First Department,*

*October*18, 1874.

■ *Invalid proof to vacate an assessment.*

Where the proof is entirely insufficient to establish the fact that a certain newspaper, to publish legal notices, was designated by the comptroller of the city of New York for a certain year, and that the assessment proceedings in a street matter took place during that year, it is.irregular - to order the assessment vacated.

Appeal .from an order vacating assessment.

*E. Delafield Smith,*for appellant.

*Neville & Andrews,*for respondent.

Davis, *P. J.*

— In this case also, the petitioner has failed to establish any -interest in the lots which entitles him to maintain the proceedings. The reasons assigned in the opinion in *In re Phillips*are equally applicable to the present case.

There was also an utter failure to prove the alleged defect. It was shown that the ¡New York Leader was designated by the comptroller as one of the papers to publish the proceedings of the common council, pursuant to the first section of chapter 586 of the Laws of 1867; but the designation was limited by its terms to the year 1867.

All the proceedings in this matter took place in 1868. The absence of notices, &c., in the ¡New York Leader, in 1868,-may quite as readily be accounted for, perhaps, by presuming *117the non-designation of that paper for the year 1868, as by the presumption that the officers of the city were guilty of a neglect of official duty. It is quite certain that no proof was given that the Leader was appointed for 1868, unless it is to be found or inferred from a certificate which, in terms, designated that paper *“*during the year 1867.” And to treat the proof given as evidence of a fatal defect, it is necessary to presume a double neglect of duty on the part of public officers. First, that the comptroller neglected to make any designation for the year 1868 ; secondly, that the common council neglected to publish its proceedings in all the papers employed by the city.

Again, if the designation of the Leader for 1868 can be inferred, that alone was not sufficient proof that that paper, in fact, became one of those employed by the city. The proof given was only one step toward proving such employment, and, as the paper was not bound by the mere act of designation, there was a fatal insufficiency in the proof given.

I am of opinion, also, that, had the alleged defect in publication been proved, the seventh section of the act of 1872 *(Sess. Laws,*1872, *chap.*580) operates to prevent the vacating of the assessment on any such ground, and that this case is not within the exception contained in that section *(Lennon case, court of appeals, and matter of Antwerp, same court).*

The order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the petition denied, with ten dollars costs of the court below. ■ , ,.

Brady, J., concurs.

Daniels, J.

I concur, without deciding what the effect

of the act of 1872 should have in the case.
§ 142.105 Applicability and delayed implementation for existing vessels. This part applies to all towing vessels subject to this subchapter. ( a ) An existing towing vessel must comply with the requirements in this part no later than either July 20, 2018 or the date the vessel obtains a Certificate of Inspection (COI), whichever date is earlier.
( b ) The delayed implementation provisions in paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to a new towing vessel.
#### Olin J. Wilcox, *Respondent, v.*Byron H. Daggett, *Appellant*.

So much of the order appealed from as allows ten dollars costs to abide the event reversed, as to the remainder affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Opinion by

Haight, J.
1 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM E. POWELL, 

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-11033 

JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANTHONY P. PATTI 

 v. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

Defendant. 

 

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 MOTION 

(DE 31) AS A MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A CASE MANAGEMENT 

SCHEDULING ORDER and GRANTING SUCH MOTION 

This case is one of three Plaintiff has filed in this Court against the Internal 

Revenue Service.1

 Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit pro se on March 19, 2015. 

(DE 1.) He is proceeding in forma pauperis. (See DEs 2, 5 & 13.) 

This case has been referred to me for all pretrial matters. (See DEs 26, 29.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s September 15, 2015 request for the Court 

to require a meet and confer report. (DE 31.) In support of his request, Plaintiff 

cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) (“Conference of the Parties; Planning for Discovery.”) 

and E.D. Mich. LR 16.3 (“Alternative Dispute Resolution: General Provisions”). 

 

1 See also Powell v. IRS, Case No. 2:14-cv-12626-SFC-MJH and Powell v. IRS, 

2:15-cv-11616-PDB-APP. 

2:15-cv-11033-PDB-APP Doc # 32 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 151
2 

Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s September 15, 2015 motion (DE 31) is 

CONSTRUED as a motion for entry of a case management scheduling order and is 

GRANTED. Accordingly, the parties shall confer and develop a proposed 

discovery plan as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). This proposed plan shall 

be filed with the Court no later than Friday, October 2, 2015. Once the Court 

receives the parties’ proposed plan, it will enter a case management scheduling 

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on September 18, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-11033-PDB-APP Doc # 32 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 152
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GLADYS M. MOORE, 

Plaintiff,

No. 15-CV-11022

vs. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

This matter is presently before the Court on a Report and Recommendation 

issued by United States Magistrate Judge David R. Grand on October 30, 2015. 

Dkt. # 18. In his Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), Magistrate Judge Grand

recommends that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant (Dkt. # 18) be granted 

and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant be dismissed with prejudice, both 

because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata and because Plaintiff’s 

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff timely

filed objections to the R & R, Dkt. # 19, Defendant responded to those objections, 

Dkt. # 20, and Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s responses, Dkt. # 21. Having 

2:15-cv-11022-GER-DRG Doc # 22 Filed 12/28/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 187
2

now had the opportunity to review the R & R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the entire 

record of this matter, the Court has determined that Plaintiff’s objections fail to 

adequately respond to the reasons state for dismissal in the R & R, and, therefore, 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted and this case should 

be dismissed in its entirety.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s October 30, 2015 

Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 18) is hereby adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated by the Magistrate 

Judge, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 12) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2015 s/Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

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

and/or counsel of record on December 28, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary 

mail.

s/Julie Owens

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

2:15-cv-11022-GER-DRG Doc # 22 Filed 12/28/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 188
§ 196.37-10 Fire extinguishing system branch lines. ( a ) The branch line valves of all fire extinguishing systems shall be plainly and permanently marked indicating the spaces served.
§ 195.07-1 Application. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of § 195.07-90, shall apply to all vessels other than unmanned barges, contracted for on or after March 1, 1968.
( b ) Vessels other than unmanned barges contracted for prior to March 1, 1968 shall meet the requirements of § 195.07-90.