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

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 L.A.M. Pharmaceutical Corp. (the “Company”)
  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Joseph T. Slechta, the President,
  Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and 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 of 2002, that to the best of his 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 results of the Company.

| | By: | /s/ Joseph T. Slechta                                                 
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Joseph T. Slechta, President, Chief Executive Officer,
      Principal
| |     | Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer                        

May 16, 2005

---
[No. 3554.]

#### McArthur v. Brigham.

Executors and *Administrators*— Right *to Control Litigation.*The personal representative to a decedent, who in that capacity has instituted a litigation, is not to be interfered with therein, by the heirs' of the decedent, unless some sufficient cause for such interference is shown.

*Appeal from Arapahoe District Court.*Hon. Charles McCall, Judge.

On motion to dismiss appeal, John T. Barnett, Protestant.

Messrs. Crump & Allen, Mr. J. E. McCall, for appellant.

Messrs. Stuart & Murray, for appellee.

*Per curiam.*

*506Appellant moves to dismiss tlie appeal. Against granting said motion protest is filed by an attorney representing some of the heirs of the estate, for which, appellant is administratrix *de bonis non.*The protest is-not supported by any showing sufficient to justify a denial of the right of the administratrix to control this litigation. The protest is overruled and the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
#### § 179.115 Applicability to existing vessels.

An existing vessel must comply with the subdivision, damage stability, and watertight integrity regulations which were applicable to the vessel on March 10, 1996, or, as an alternative, the vessel may comply with the regulations in this part.
**Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2012 —
 Cooperativa Vitivinicola Arousana v OHIM

(Case C-649/11 P)**

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Likelihood of confusion – Word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO – Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ROSALIA

1.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the
assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1),
TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 39)*

2.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Plea directed against a superfluous ground – Invalid plea in law – Rejection (see para. 55)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 in Case T-421/10 | Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana | v | OHIM – Sotelo Ares | , by which the General Court rejected the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2010 (Case R 1804/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between María Constantina Sotelo Ares and Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The appeal is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega is ordered to pay the costs. |
§ 203.1 Scope of rules. ( a ) The provisions of this part apply to applications which involve statutorily mandated hearings under sections 605(c) and 805(a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1175(c), 1223(a)), hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, conducted by the Maritime Administrator or Maritime Subsidy Board of the Maritime Administration, hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Administration”.
( b ) The provisions of this part are to be construed consistently with the Administration Rules of Practice and Procedure in 46 CFR part 201. If this part and 46 CFR part 201 conflict, this part shall govern.
*This matter is being decided by a quorum pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d). 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________

No. 97-20172

______________________

LELAND BRADLEY FOUSE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Institutional Division;

EARL FOX,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-94-CV-4216

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

July 20, 1998

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the appellant’s motion for reconsideration

is construed as a petition for panel rehearing and is GRANTED.

Inasmuch as the appellant had seven months to depose his

witness, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

the appellant’s motion to continue trial. See Dorsey v. Scott

Wetzel Serv., Inc., 84 F.3d 170, 171 (5th Cir. 1996).
2–

PETITION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
(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 this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of and for the period covered by this Report.
 Dated:  November 13, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Mark S. AllioMark S. AllioChairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive OfficerDated:  November 13, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Therese Ann LiutkusTherese Ann Liutkus, CPATreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
file:///C|/Temp/0900006481167bd6.txt[8/7/2013 11:21:29 AM]

From: <helmm@pjm.com> 

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 10/12/2012 10:45 AM 

Subject: FW: Various DR reports

Melanie, 

Very nice speaking with you today. Following up to our conversation, attached are a number reports that hopefully 

will be informative. There are 4 documents regarding DR use in the recent hot weather, and one document entitled 

load management performance report that includes a listing of historical emergency DR events. 

Please contact me with any questions/comments. Hope you have a nice weekend. 

Regards, 

Gary 

M. Gary Helm 

Sr. Market Strategist 

PJM Interconnection, LLC 

helmm@pjm.com 

phone: 610-666-2273 

cell: 302-275-5235 

(See attached file: load-management-performance-report-2011-2012.ashx.pdf)(See attached file: 

20120718-load-management-dr-event-key-times-and-hours.ashx.pdf)(See attached file: 20120717-

load-management-dr-event-key-times-and-hours.ashx.pdf)(See attached file: pjm-hot-days-reportfor-july-2-july-8-2012.ashx.pdf)(See attached file: pjm-hot-days-report-july-16-18-2012.ashx.pdf)
#### KATIE ANDES, PLAINTIFF, v. CHARLES W. MASON, DEFENDANT.

Decided November 4, 1929.

Before Gummere, Ciiiee Justice, and Justices Parker and Bodine.

Eor the rule, *McCarter & English.*

*Contra, Amos M. Wain.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought suit to recover compensation for injuries received by her in a collision which occurred between *934her car, which she was driving, and the car of the defendant. The trial resulted in an award in her favor in the sum of $8,500.

The first ground upon which we are asked to make this rule absolute is that the finding of the jury that the accident resulted solely through the carelessness of the defendant is contrary to the clear weight of evidence. Our examination -of the proofs satisfies us that this contention is not substantial.

It is further contended that the award of $8,500 is excessive. We think it is plainly so. If plaintiff will consent to a reduction of the verdict to the sum of $5,000, the rule to show cause will he discharged; otherwise, it will be made absolute.
1 | P a g e

A Y A D L A W , P . L . L . C .

6 4 5 G r i s w o l d S t . , S t e . 2 2 0 2

D E T R O I T , M I C H I G A N 4 8 2 2 6

P : ( 7 3 4 ) 9 8 3 - 4 6 0 0 | F : ( 3 1 3 ) 9 8 3 - 4 6 6 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SOUTHWEST METALS Inc., a 

Michigan Domestic Profit Corporation, 

and JOSEPH FAWAZ, an individual, 

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No.: 15-cv-11080

Hon. Marianne O. Battani

Mag. Anthony P. Patti

 

Defendants.

AYAD LAW, P.L.L.C.

NABIH H. AYAD (P59518)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

645 Griswold Street, Suite 2202

Detroit, MI 48226

Phone: (313) 983-4600

Email: nayad@ayadlaw.com

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

A: March 25 TRO Motion

B: March 26 Business License Letter

CITY OF DETROIT, MICHAEL E. 

DUGGAN, Mayor of Detroit, in his 

official capacity, DETROIT POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, JAMES CRAIG, 

Detroit Police Chief, in his official 

capacity, SGT. REBECCA McKAY in 

her individual and official capacities, 

jointly and severally.

Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 9-1, PageID.97 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 2
2 | P a g e

A Y A D L A W , P . L . L . C .

6 4 5 G r i s w o l d S t . , S t e . 2 2 0 2

D E T R O I T , M I C H I G A N 4 8 2 2 6

P : ( 7 3 4 ) 9 8 3 - 4 6 0 0 | F : ( 3 1 3 ) 9 8 3 - 4 6 6 5

C: March 2015 Warrants

D: Chapter 30 Detroit City Code

Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 9-1, PageID.98 Filed 04/06/15 Page 2 of 2
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 17 - 00088 - CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D .J. AND D.J., CHILDREN

---------- FROM THE 323RD DISTR ICT COUR T OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 323

- 103126

- 16

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant D.E.J. (Father) appeals the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to h is children , D.J. and D.J. After a bench trial in which Father

was r epresented by counsel, the trial court found that he had knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in conditions or surroundings that endangered their physical or emotional well

- being, had engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with p ersons who engaged in conduct that endangered their physical or emotional well

- being, and had constructively abandoned the children.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N) (West Supp. 2016). The trial court also found that termination of Fa ther ’ s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. See id. § 161.001(b)(2). Father ’ s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California in which counsel avers that Father’s appeal is frivolous and without merit

. See 386 U.S . 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see also In re K.M. , 98 S.W.3d 774, 776

– 77 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a pr ofessional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel also sent Father a letter that informed him of several matters, including his right to file a response to the Anders brief. Although given the opportunity, Father has not responded to counsel ’ s Anders brief. The State has not filed a brief. As the reviewing court, we must independently examine the record to decide whether th e appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re K.R.C. , 346 S.W.3d 618, 619 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2009, no pet.). Having carefully reviewed the record and the Anders brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support Father’s appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating the parent

- child relationship between Father and the children. But3

we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw becau se he does not show “good cause” separate and apart from his accurate determination that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See In re P.M. , No. 15

- 0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) (holding that the right to counsel under family code section 107.013(a)(1) extends to proceedings in the supreme court and that in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, an Anders motion to withdraw brought in the court of appeals may be premature); In re C.J. , 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied).

/s/ Bill Meier BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: MEIER, SUDDERTH, and KERR, JJ. DELIVERED: August 3 , 2017
§ 185.410 Watchmen. ( a ) The owner, charterer, master, or managing operator of a vessel carrying overnight passengers shall have a suitable number of watchmen patrol throughout the vessel during the nighttime, whether or not the vessel is underway, to guard against, and give alarm in case of, a fire, man overboard, or other dangerous situation.
( b ) Vessels described by 46 CFR 175.110(d) must submit plans to the cognizant OCMI, in accordance with 46 CFR 176.700, for the installation and use of monitoring device to ensure the wakefulness of the watchmen required in paragraph (a) of this section. Vessels with a keel laid date after March 28, 2022, must include plans for the monitoring device(s) within the plan submissions required in 46 CFR 177.202. The Coast Guard will work with the vessel operators to determine a reasonable implementation schedule once the plans are accepted. The monitoring device(s) must: ( 1 ) Ensure the wakefulness of the crew in the event that the watchman required in paragraph (a) of this section is unresponsive;
( 2 ) Remain operable during the nighttime watch; and
( 3 ) Be arranged to ensure proper coverage of the passenger accommodation spaces, common areas, and spaces with potential fire hazards.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51359, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2021-0306, 86 FR 73172, Dec. 27, 2021]
§ 193.50-1 Application. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of § 193.50-90, apply to all vessels, including non-self-propelled vessels of less than 300 gross tons, contracted for on or after March 1, 1968.
( b ) All vessels other than unmanned barges contracted for prior to March 1, 1968, must meet the requirements of § 193.50-90.
( c ) All unmanned barges are exempted from the requirements in this subpart. However, if such barges carry on board hand portable fire extinguishers and semi-portable fire extinguishing systems, then such equipment must be in accordance with this subpart for manned barges.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1145, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48301, July 22, 2016]
§ 28.200 Applicability. Each documented commercial fishing industry vessel must meet the requirements of this subpart in addition to the requirements of subparts A and B of this part if it: ( a ) Operates beyond the Boundary Lines;
( b ) Operates with more than 16 individuals on board; or
( c ) Is a fish tender vessel engaged in the Aleutian trade.
[CGD 94-025, 60 FR 54444, Oct. 24, 1995]
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 164.106-1 Scope

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of primary deck coverings for SOLAS vessels as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
**EXHIBITITEM 32.2**

 

SECTION 906CERTIFICATION

 

The certification setforth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solelyfor the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code.

 

March 29, 2010

 

Bruce N. Warner, the Chief FinancialOfficer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

i.                              that this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

ii.                           that information contained in the annualreport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations  of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/ Bruce N. Warner           |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Bruce N. Warner               |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  and  |
|   | Principal  Accounting Officer |

 

1

----
# C_2013038EN.01001703.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Wim JJ Slot v 3 H Camping-Center Heinsberg GmbH

(Case C-98/12) (1)

1

2013/C 38/27

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

1

---
#### COMMUTERS’ COACH COMPANY, RELATOR, v. JOSEPH MINTON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF BAYONNE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Submitted January term, 1929

Decided May 7, 1929.

Before Justices Black, Campbell and Case.

For the rule, *Thomas F. Meehan.*

*Contra, James Benny.*

Pee Cdeiam.

The issuance of a writ of *mandamus*is sought to compel the director of public works of the city of Bayonne to issue a permit to relator to erect a garage for the storage of its buses on Broadway in that city.

We think that in the exercise of proper judicial discretion the writ should be denied because the proofs fairly establish, that the location of the proposed garage is in a residential section of the city, although more or less undeveloped and the city commissioners have appointed a zoning commission, pursuant to statute, and said commission is proceeding with its-work, which should not be interfered with or disturbed by a structure of this kind at this time.

The rule to show cause is therefore discharged, with costs.
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 on Form 10-Q/A of UGC Europe, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles H.R. Bracken, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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:

Date:
November 13, 2003

| |  |  | /s/CHARLES H.R. BRACKENCharles H.R. Bracken Chief Financial Officer
| |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26164]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R05-OAR-2011-0968; FRL-9918-78-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Indiana; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the September 17, 2014, direct 
final rule approving a revision to provisions in Title 326 of the 
Indiana Administrative Code, Article 4, Rule 1, Open Burning Rule.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 79 FR 55641 on September 17, 
2014, is withdrawn effective November 5, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental 
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
(312) 886-6031 hatten.charles@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The State of Indiana submitted this revision 
as a modification to the State Implementation Plan for open burning on 
November 14, 2011. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if adverse 
comments were submitted by October 17, 2014, the rule would be 
withdrawn and not take effect. On September 21, 2014, EPA received an 
adverse comment and, therefore, is withdrawing the direct final rule. 
EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon 
the proposed action also published on September 17, 2014. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Emissions 
Reporting, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 24, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.770 published in the Federal 
Register on September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55641) on pages 55644-55645 is 
withdrawn effective November 5, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2014-26164 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```