alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

 

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of PCD Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, John L. Dwight, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company    as of December 31, 2002 (the last date of the period covered by the Report).    
 
 

                    /s/ John L. Dwight, Jr.                                 John L. Dwight, Jr.                        Chief Executive Officer
#### § 195.17-1 When required.

All mechanically propelled vessels of 1,600 gross tons and over in ocean or coastwise service must be fitted with a marine radar system for surface navigation. Facilities for plotting radar readings must be provided on the bridge.

[CGD 75-074, 42 FR 5965, Jan. 31, 1977]
#### § 42.05-55 Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.

This term means any person from the civilian or military branch of the Coast Guard designated as such by the Commandant and who, under the superintendence and direction of the Coast Guard District Commander, is in charge of a marine inspection zone, and may supervise or perform the duties of a marine inspector.

[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10052, July 12, 1968]
Paul Nicoletti --- credit for payments made by other co-defendants

Nicoletti was ordered to pay restitution, joint and several, with Alan Lucia, Tyrone Hogan, Matthew 

Flynn and Robert Hance. Not all of the defendants were ordered to pay the same set of victims. The 

chart below sets forth amount of restitution ordered only for Fifth Third Bank, Chubb Insurance and First 

American Title (the victims identified in Nicoletti’s judgment). 

Defendant name Fifth Third Bank Chubb Insurance First American Title

Lucia $738,342.50 $687,248.00 $0

Hogan $1,193,716.83 $812,202.82 $0

Flynn $2,213,241.09 $1,317,858.91 $0

Hance $6,019,123.00 $0 $0

Nicoletti $1,257,751.58 $2,021,000.00 $2,200,000.00

The balance due is subject to change based upon the receipt of payment from any of the identified 

defendants. To the extent that a defendant has also been ordered to pay other victims, each payment 

would be disbursed pro rata among all of that particular defendant’s victims. 

As of June 3, 2021, after application of payments received, and allocated to Fifth Third Bank or Chubb 

Insurance, Nicoletti’s balance is:

$1,192,644.95 to Fifth Third Bank

$1,960,028.69 to Chubb Insurance

$2,200,000 to First American Title

Credit for the income tax refund, which is the subject of Nicoletti’s prior motion (ECF Nos. 213,215), has 

not been included in this calculation because those funds remain in dispute. 

 ATTACHMENT TWO

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 224-3, PageID.3484 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 1
**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Samuel L. Neese, Executive Vice 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 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/ Samual L. Neese

Samual L. Neese

Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer

April 1, 2008
#### In the Matter of Stephen P. Russell, Jr.

Order to show cause granted.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 24311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2171]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 12:00 p.m., Monday, May 7, 2007.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 27, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 07-2171 Filed 4-27-07; 5:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

250 EAST FLAMINGO, LLC,

Petitioners, Case No. 15-mc-50702

Paul D. Borman

v. United States District Judge

Anthony P. Patti

FRANK TADDEO, et al., United States Magistrate

Judge

Respondents.

_________________________/

ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANTHONY P. PATTI’S AUGUST 12, 2015

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE

TO PROSECUTE AND (2) DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On August 12, 2015, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti issued a Report and

Recommendation to Dismiss Without Prejudice For Failure to Prosecute. (ECF No. 7.) Having

reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and there being no timely objections from either party

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L. R. 72.1(d), the Court ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 15, 2015

2:15-mc-50702-PDB-APP Doc # 8 Filed 09/15/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 289
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party

of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on September 15, 2015.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

2:15-mc-50702-PDB-APP Doc # 8 Filed 09/15/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 290
**We grant Kona Associates L.L.C.’s request for amendment of the exemption granted by 

Order 2004-8-8, to the extent necessary to increase the number of members allowed to 

participate in the Kona Shuttle program from 120 to 150. Except to the extent authorized here, 

the authority granted remains subject to the conditions of Order 2004-8-8.

Approved under assigned authority on

May 2, 2014**

Director, Office of International Aviation
Case 2:15-cr-20262-SFC-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.379 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:15-cr-20262-SFC-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.380 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:15-cr-20262-SFC-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.381 Filed 07/13/16 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:15-cr-20262-SFC-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.382 Filed 07/13/16 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:15-cr-20262-SFC-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.383 Filed 07/13/16 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:15-cr-20262-SFC-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.384 Filed 07/13/16 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:15-cr-20262-SFC-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.385 Filed 07/13/16 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:15-cr-20262-SFC-EAS ECF No. 68, PageID.386 Filed 07/13/16 Page 8 of 8
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 2 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 10
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 2 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 11
#### § 327.30 Statute of limitations for AEA and claim requirements.

A civil suit must be filed within two years of the Accrual Date. No civil suit may be brought until the earlier occurrence of either the denial of a claim or the presumptive denial of the claim after 6 months from the date the claim was properly presented in writing to the Maritime Administration.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1
                             i2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Jurisdiction
                                                            in which
       Name of Subsidiary                                   Organized
--------------------------------                         --------------
<S>                                                      <C>
i2 Technologies Pty Ltd                                  Australia

iTwo Technologies Exports, Inc.                          Barbados

i2 Technologies N.V.                                     Belgium

i2 Technologies (Canada), Inc.                           Canada

i2 Technologies A/S                                      Denmark
                                                                         
i2 Technologies GmbH                                     Germany

i2 Technologies Japan K.K.                               Japan

i2 Technologies Pte Ltd                                  Singapore

i2 Technologies, Limited                                 United Kingdom
</TABLE>
#### HENRY KUPFER, Respondent, *v.*MARY FRANK, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

*Judgment*— an *execution cannot be issued, upon it until it has been docketed,*— *the jwe yea/rs, within which an execution must issue, a/i'e to be computed, from that time.*

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term, denyingamotion to vacate an injunction.

This is an action in the nature of a creditor’s bill, founded upon a judgment and an execution issued and returned *nulla tona,*and it seeks assets of the appellant to be applied upon such judgment. The assets consist of a claim against the Mutual Life Insurance Company, arising upon a policy of insurance in the name of the appellant on the life of her husband. The only question that seems to have been presented at Special Term was whether the complaint shows an execution duly issued within five years from the time the judgment was rendered. The allegations of the complaint are sufficient upon that question to show the issuing of an execution within that time; but it is shown by affidavit -that the judgment was for deficiency arising upon the sale of mortgaged premises in an action of foreclosure, and it is also shown that the judgment of foreclosure and sale was rendered on the 5th day of September, 1876, and that on the 25th day of October, 1876, the referee’s report of sale was made in the action bearing date on that day, which shows a deficiency, for which judgment was docketed on the 22d of January, 1878.

The court at General Term said: “ If such docketing was the entry of the judgment wittiin the meaning of the Code, then the issuing of the execution on the 13th of December, 1882, *75was within five years. The Code provides (sec. 1375) that executions may issue, of course, at any time within five years after the entry of the judgment, and by section 1365 that an execution' against property can be issued only to the county, in the clerk’s office of which the judgment is docketed.

“We are inclined to think that the .court below was correct in construing these sections as authorizing the issuing of execution in this case. On the filing of the referee’s report of deficiency, the judgment declaring the liability, of the defendants for such deficiency was not brought to a condition in which execution could issue; therefore something more was necessary to be done, and we are of opinion that the sections referred to, of the Code, are intended to limit the time within which executions may issue of course upon any judgment, to the period of five years after the right to issue the same has fully accrued. In this case, the right did not accrue until the judgment was duly docketed, and that not having been done until the time above named, the execution is shown upon the facts to have been issued within five years.” * *

*A. E.*Dyett, for the appellant.

*Ezra A*Tuttle, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.;

Brady and Daniels, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, without costs.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.151-29 Additional approval tests for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts. To verify compliance with the requirements of IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution MSC.293(87), Chapter IV/4.3.5 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.151-5 of this subpart), the following test must be conducted for SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferafts in addition to those required by § 160.151-27 and IMO Revised recommendation on testing, as amended by Resolution MSC.295(87) (incorporated by reference, see § 160.151-5 of this subpart: ( a ) *Test of filling time for stability appendages.* A representative sample of each type and size of stability appendage to be fitted to a liferaft must be tested as follows: ( 1 ) The appendage must be attached to a testing jig similar in material and construction to the appendage's intended location on a liferaft. The method of attachment must be the same as used on a liferaft. The appendage and jig must be attached to a scale capable of recording peak readings, and suspended over a pool of calm water. The dry weight must be recorded.
( 2 ) The appendage and jig must then be quickly lowered into the water until the appendage is completely submerged. When the appendage has been in the water for 25 seconds, it must be smoothly lifted completely out of the water, and the peak weight after the appendage is removed from the water recorded.
( 3 ) The difference in weights measured according to paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section must be at least 60 percent of the appendage's volume, calculated in accordance with § 160.151-17(a)(2)(i).
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGD 85-205, 62 FR 25547, May 9, 1997, as amended by USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52192, Sept. 30, 1998; USCG-2010-0048, 76 FR 62999, Oct. 11, 2011; 77 FR 9865, Feb. 21, 2012]
§ 42.09-40 Annual surveys. ( a ) Relative to §§ 42.09-15(d) and 42.09-20(c), the assigning and issuing authority shall make an annual survey of each vessel holding an appropriate certificate issued under this subchapter.
( b ) The annual survey shall be of such scope and extent so as to ensure: ( 1 ) The maintenance in an effective condition of the fittings and appliances for the: ( i ) Protection of openings;
( ii ) Guardrails;
( iii ) Freeing ports; and,
( iv ) Means of access to crew's quarters.
( 2 ) That there have not been alterations made to the hull or superstructure which would affect the calculations determining the position of the load line marks.
( c ) The assigning and issuing authority shall report on the annual survey made to the owner of the vessel.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10057, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGD 80-143, 47 FR 25149, June 10, 1982]
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00247-CR

____________________

EBONY LIVING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 293812

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

After this Court issued its opinion, in which we dismissed the appeal as 

untimely, appellant Ebony Living filed a motion for reconsideration. In the motion 

for reconsideration, Living argues that her attorney hand delivered a notice of 

appeal “to the Clerk of the County Court at Law No. 2 for filing[,]” but “[o]n or 

about May 23, 2014[,] it was discovered that the Notice of Appeal filed on April 8, 

2014[,] was not processed by the trial court in a timely manner.” Living contends 

“[t]his was an oversight by all parties and was not intentionally and knowingly 

done.”
2

The appellate record before this Court is insufficient to establish that Living filed 

her notice of appeal on April 8, 2014. It is ORDERED that the trial court conduct a 

hearing to determine whether Living timely filed her notice of appeal. For this purpose 

the trial court shall conduct such hearings as may be necessary, make findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, and prepare a record of the proceeding. The trial court may receive 

evidence in the form of affidavits made under penalty of perjury or sworn testimony 

before the trial court at the hearing. The record of the hearing, including any orders and 

findings of the trial judge, as well as any affidavits or other exhibits received by the trial 

court, shall be filed in the Court of Appeals by August 25, 2014.

ORDER ENTERED July 24, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
§ 403.400 Uniform pilot's source form. ( a ) Each association must record pilotage transactions using the system currently approved by the Director.
( b ) Each pilot must complete a source form in detail as soon as possible after completion of an assignment, with adequate support for reimbursable travel expenses.
( c ) Upon receipt, each association must complete the source form by inserting the rates and charges specified in 46 CFR part 401.
[USCG-2015-0497, 81 FR 11941, Mar. 7, 2016]
§ 35.03-15 Shipboard stowage—TB/ALL. ( a ) The approved buoyant work vests shall be stowed separately from the regular stowage of approved life preservers.
( b ) The locations for the stowage of work vests shall be such as not to be easily confused with that for approved life preservers.
§ 195.11-20 Marking and label plate. ( a ) All vans shall be provided with a label plate stating light weight, gross weight, and power requirements where applicable.
( b ) For vans subject to inspection label plates shall provide space for the date of initial inspection, the marine inspector's initials, and stamp. Space shall also be provided for the reinspection stamping.
Order entered Dece mber 16 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00517
- CR ARIANNA LINDSEY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. F
- 1171158
- J



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES the appeal. On November 18, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding whether the case involved a plea bargain, whether appellant waived her right to appeal, and whether the trial cour t granted appellant permission to appeal. We ADOPT the trial court’s findings that: (1) appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement that punishment would be assessed between eight and twenty

- two years’ imprisonment; (2) appellant did not waive her right to appeal as part of the agreement; (3) the trial court followed the agreement and sentenced appellant to eighteen years’ imprisonment; (4) although there was an agreement as to a punishment cap, the parties and the trial court treated the case as in volving an “open” guilty plea; (5) both parties were informed on the record that appellant could appeal the trial court’s decision;and (6) thus, the trial court has granted appellant permission to appeal. The supplemental clerk’s

record contains the tria l court’s amended certification giving appellant permission to appeal. We have received the reporter’s record from the plea and sentencing hearings, as well as the clerk’s record. Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.
We DI RECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES TRAXLER, 

 Petitioner, Civil Case No. 15-10995 

 Honorable Linda V. Parker 

v.

RANDALL HAAS, 

 Respondent, 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TRANSFER PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [ECF NO. 6] TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

 On March 17, 2015, James Traxler (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenged his conviction out of the 

Newaygo County Circuit Court for second-degree murder and felony-firearm. When he filed 

the petition, Petitioner was confined at the Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven, 

Michigan. On April 13, 2015, this Court summarily dismissed Petitioner’s habeas application 

without prejudice on the ground that Petitioner failed to exhaust one of his claims with the state 

courts. (ECF No. 5.) The Court declined to hold the petition in abeyance while Petitioner 

exhausted that claim. (Id.) Thus, the Court did not retain jurisdiction over this matter. 

 On January 20, 2017, Petitioner filed a new petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner 

currently is incarcerated at the Muskegon Correctional Facility in Muskegon County, Michigan.

4:15-cv-10995-LVP-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 02/06/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 140
Muskegon County and Newaygo County (where Petitioner was convicted) are located in the 

Western District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1). 

 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) instructs that a habeas petition submitted by a person in state custody 

may be filed in the district where the person is in custody or in the district where the person was 

convicted and sentenced. A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a state prisoner’s 

habeas petition, where the petitioner was not convicted, sentenced, or incarcerated within that 

district. See Wadsworth v. Johnson, 235 F.3d 959, 962-63 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, Petitioner’s 

recent habeas corpus petition should have been filed in the District Court for the Western 

District of Michigan and this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate it. Nevertheless, § 2241(d) 

grants the district court where a petition is filed the discretion, in furtherance of justice, to 

transfer the petition to another district. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus filed on January 20, 2017 (ECF No. 6) to the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Michigan.

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

Dated: February 6, 2017 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or 

pro se parties on this date, February 6, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:15-cv-10995-LVP-DRG Doc # 7 Filed 02/06/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 141
#### § 32.25-1 General alarm systems for tankships and manned tank barges.

A general alarm system must be installed on tankships and manned tank barges which meets the requirements in subchapter J (Electrical Engineering Regulations) of this chapter.

[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15230, Apr. 8, 1982]