alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

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 on Form 10-K of Siebel Systems, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2004 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 annual report on Form 10-K 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
9th day of March 2005.



| | /s/ J. Michael Lawrie
Chief 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 on Form 10-K of Siebel Systems, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2004 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 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
9th day of March 2005.



| | /s/ Kenneth A. Goldman
Senior Vice President, Finance and
Administration and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification accompanies the annual report
on Form 10-K 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 annual report on Form 10-K), 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.

---
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel, Endowment Program Review.                    

*Date:*                         May 29-30, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         5 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites Hotel, 4300 Military Road, Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lorrita Watson, PhD, National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892-5465, (301) 402-1366,                         *watsonl@ncmhd.nih.gov.*

Dated: April 30, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-2213 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 189.25-35 Marine engineering equipment. ( a ) For inspection procedures of Marine Engineering equipment and systems, see Subchapter F (Marine Engineering) of this chapter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Levert Lyons,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 15-10160

Scott C. Kinsel, et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff filed this action on January 15, 2015, asserting subject matter jurisdiction through

diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332. (Doc. #1). 

“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to investigate and police the boundaries of

their own jurisdiction.” Douglas v. E.F. Baldwin & Assocs., Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 607 (6th Cir. 1998).

Under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), the two requirements for diversity jurisdiction are: 1) that the matter in

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and 2) that

complete diversity of citizenship exists between the disputing parties. 

On January 28, 2015, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. #4). At that time, the Court’s concern was

the citizenship of the LLC defendants. Plaintiff timely, but incompletely, responded to the first

Show Cause Order. The Court issued a second Show Cause Order, (Doc. #10), to which the Plaintiff

timely responded. (Doc. #11). 

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Response to the Show Cause Orders,

in which Plaintiff states that he has discovered that Defendant Tara J. Williams is a resident and

2:15-cv-10160-SFC-APP Doc # 30 Filed 02/20/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 323
citizen of Michigan. (Doc. #28). Therefore, because Plaintiff is also a resident and citizen of

Michigan, (Compl. at ¶ 1), complete diversity between Plaintiff and all Defendants does not exist. 

Plaintiff has not alleged any causes of action arising under federal law. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: February 20, 2015

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

February 20, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-10160-SFC-APP Doc # 30 Filed 02/20/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 324
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                         LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF ISSUER

                                                            PERCENTAGE OF SHARES
                                                              OWNED BY ISSUER
                                                            --------------------
Micro-Filtration, Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                    100%
Numation  Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                             90%
Numatech Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                              88%
I.A.E. Incorporated; incorporated in Michigan                       100%
Ultra Air Products, Inc.; incorporated in Michigan                  100%
Microsmith, Inc.; incorporated in Arizona                           100%
Numatics B.V.; organized in the Netherlands                         100%
Numatics S.A. de C.V.; organized in Mexico                           99%
Numatics S.A.R.L.; organized in France                               99%
Numatics Ltd.; organized in the United Kingdom                       99%
Numatics Ltd.; organized in Canada                                  100%
NAC Beteilingungs GmbH; organized in Germany                        100%
Numatics GmbH; organized in Germany                                 100%
Numatics K.F.T.; organized in Hungary                               100%
Numatics Ltd; organized in Taiwan                                    91%
Numatics S.R.L.; organized in Italy                                  99%
Empire Automation Systems, Inc.; incorporated in New York           100%
Numatics Spain S.L.; organized in Spain                             100%
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 Quarterly Report of Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”),
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
      Rick
      Berry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, 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/
                RICK BERRYRick
                BerryChief
                Financial Officer





November
      10, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained by Sanders Morris Harris
      Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6894

DAVID BARKSDALE, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STAUNTON

CORRECTIONAL CENTER; SANDRA EARLY, Nurse;

MARSHALL, Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-331-R)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Barksdale, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Barksdale, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

1998) complaint. The district court’s dismissal without prejudice

is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal

without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [in the

complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Id. at

1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 844

F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissal

without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must

determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely

amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this

case, Barksdale may move in the district court to reopen his case

and to file an amended complaint specifically alleging facts

sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Therefore,

the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods)**

**(Case T-333/11)**

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark star foods — Earlier Community word and figurative marks STAR SNACKS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
— Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark star foods and word mark STAR SNACKS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-38)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) in relation to goods falling within Classes 29, 30 and, with the exception of ‘beers’, within Class 32 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and three quarters of the costs of Mr Nicolas Wessang; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders Mr Wessang to bear one quarter of his own costs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5. | | Orders Greinwald GmbH to bear its own costs. |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00917-CV

Peter T. CISNEROS,

Appellant

v.

CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY as Subrogee of J. Mills Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a 

Visiting Angels,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22-380

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT 

OF PROSECUTION. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against appellant in relation to 

this appeal because he qualifies as indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.

SIGNED May 8, 2024.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
# C_2011282EN.01000402.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/4

---

Appeal brought on 29 June 2011 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

(Case C-334/11 P)

2011/C 282/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, J. Pagenberg, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court of Justice to decide as follows:

| — | The judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08 an the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of 29 July 2008 in Case R 1796/2007-1 are annulled. |
| --- | --- |

—

The judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08 an the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of 29 July 2008 in Case R 1796/2007-1 are annulled.

| — | The costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office, before the General Court and before this court shall be borne by the Office and by the Intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

The costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office, before the General Court and before this court shall be borne by the Office and by the Intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant claims that the contested judgment must be annulled because the General Court violated Article 43 (2) and (3) CTMR and committed legal error in deciding that in the contested case the five-year period following registration within which the earlier German mark FOCUS on which the opposition against the CTM application for ACNO FOCUS was based must be put to genuine use did not begin to run until 13 January 2004.

The Appellant does not challenge the finding of likelihood of confusion. While the Appellant disagrees with the finding, the Appellant considers that the General Court did not commit any error of law.

---
|EXHIBIT 32.2
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in her capacity as Chief Financial Officer ofBelcrestCapital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on her knowledge:

|(a) | theQuarterlyReport of the Fund on Form10-Qfor thequarterendedJune 30, 2006(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                               
|   



|Date:August 9, 2006
|-------------------



| | /s/Michelle A. GreenMichelle A. GreenChief Financial Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
    32.1  CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO 18
    U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
    ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
    906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In
    connection with the quarterly report of Axonyx Inc. (the Company)
    on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
    and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Marvin S. Hausman, M.D,
    Chairman 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 my knowledge:  1.
      
      the
          Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.  /s/
          Marvin S. Hausman, M.D.Marvin
          S. Hausman, M.D
        Chairman
          and Chief Executive Officer   November
    10, 2004  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.
#### § 188.10-43 Liquefied flammable gas.

This term means any flammable gas having a Reid vapor pressure exceeding 40 p.s.i. which has been liquefied.
§ 172.230 Character of damage. ( a ) Design calculations must show that each vessel can survive damage— ( 1 ) To any location between adjacent main transverse watertight bulkheads;
( 2 ) To any location between a main transverse bulkhead and a partial transverse bulkhead in way of a side wing tank;
( 3 ) To a main or wing tank transverse watertight bulkhead spaced closer than the longitudinal extent of collision penetration specified in Table 172.235 to another main transverse watertight bulkhead; and
( 4 ) To a main transverse watertight bulkhead or a transverse watertight bulkhead bounding a side tank or double bottom tank if there is a step or a recess in the transverse bulkhead that is longer than 10 feet (3.05 meters) and that is located within the extent of penetration of assumed damage. The step formed by the after peak bulkhead and after peak tank top is not a step for the purpose of this paragraph.