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





**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the
      Quarter Ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report") by American Medical Alert Corp.
      ("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies 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 Registrant.




/s/
                Jack RhianJack
                RhianChief
                Executive Officer andPresident




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 **** has
      been
      provided to and
      will
      be retained by  the
      Registrant and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
# C_2012032EN.01003101.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/31

---

Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)

(Case T-604/11)

2012/C 32/64

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 September 2011 in case R 1695/2010-4 and reject the opposition No B 1383639; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 September 2011 in case R 1695/2010-4 and reject the opposition No B 1383639; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white ‘MAGNEXT’, for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark application No 6588991

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2550099 of the word mark ‘MAGNET 4’, for goods in class 28; Community trade mark registration No 3840121 of the figurative mark in blue and white ‘Diset Magnetics’, for goods and services in classes 16, 28 and 41

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its appreciation of the likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the applied mark.

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Columbia Futures Fund and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       9,318,108
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,314<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,727,976<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,727,976<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               535,550<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               430,176
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                105,374
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            105,374
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   105,374
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable of $29,314.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized gain on open contracts of $380,554.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $93,006, accrued
management fees of $32,058 and administrative expenses payable of
$78,514.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $476,737,
net change in unrealized of $(118,550) and interest income of $177,363.
</FN>


</TABLE>
§ 28.860 Overcurrent protection and switched circuits. ( a ) Each power source must be protected against overcurrent. Overcurrent devices for generators must be set at a value not exceeding 115 percent of the generator's full load rating.
( b ) Except for a steering circuit, each circuit must be protected against both overload and short circuit. Each overcurrent device in a steering system power and control circuit must provide protection only.
( c ) Each ungrounded current carrying conductor must be protected in accordance with its current carrying capacity by a circuit breaker or fuse at the connection to the switchboard or distribution panel bus.
( d ) Each circuit breaker and each switch must simultaneously open all ungrounded conductors.
( e ) The grounded conductor of a circuit must not be disconnected by a switch or an overcurrent device unless all ungrounded conductors of the circuit are simultaneously disconnected.
( f ) Navigation light circuits must be separate, switched circuits having fused disconnect switches or circuit breakers so that only the appropriate navigation lights can be switched on.
( g ) A separate circuit with overcurrent protection at the main distribution panel or switchboard must be provided for each radio installation.
§ 502.69 Motions. ( a ) In any adjudication, an application or request for an order or ruling not otherwise specifically provided for in this part must be by motion. After the assignment of a presiding officer to a proceeding and before the issuance of his or her recommended or initial decision, all motions must be addressed to and ruled upon by the presiding officer unless the subject matter of the motion is beyond his or her authority, in which event the matter must be referred to the Commission. If the proceeding is not before the presiding officer, motions must be designated as *petitions* and must be addressed to and ruled upon by the Commission.
( b ) Motions must be in writing, except that a motion made at a hearing may be sufficient if stated orally upon the record.
( c ) Oral argument upon a written motion may be permitted at the discretion of the presiding officer or the Commission.
( d ) A repetitious motion will not be entertained.
( e ) All written motions must state clearly and concisely the purpose of and the relief sought by the motion, the statutory or principal authority relied upon, and the facts claimed to constitute the grounds supporting the relief requested; and must conform with the requirements of subpart H of this part.
( f ) Any party may file and serve a response to any written motion, pleading, petition, application, etc., permitted under this part except as otherwise provided respecting answers (§ 502.62), briefs (§ 502.214), exceptions (§ 502.227), and reply to petitions for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (§ 502.503(b)(1)).
( g ) *Dispositive and non-dispositive motions defined.* For the purpose of these rules, *dispositive motion* means a motion for decision on the pleadings; motion for summary decision or partial summary decision; motion to dismiss all or part of a proceeding or party to a proceeding; motion for involuntary dismissal; motion for initial decision on default; or any other motion for a final determination of all or part of a proceeding. All other motions, including all motions related to discovery, are non-dispositive motions. [Rule 69.]
[77 FR 61524, Oct. 10, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 93835, Dec. 22, 2016]
#### Bancroft *v.*Holton.

A payment made on a general account of many items of existing legal indebtedness, and not expressly applied to any particular items by either of the parties, is presumed to have been applied by them to the oldest items due at the time of the payment, when there is no equity or other evidence tending to show an intention to make a different application.

*142Assumpsit, on an account of many items. Facts found by a referee. The statute of limitations being pleaded, it became a material question whether a payment made by the defendant, and not expressly applied by either party to any particular items, should be applied, at the date of the writ, to items not then barred by the statute.

*Faulkners Batohelder,*for the plaintiff.

*Lane*Pole, for the defendant,

cited *Hilton*v. Burley, 2 N. H. 193, *196; Livermore*v. Rand, 26 N. H. 85, 91; *Young*v. *Woodward,*44 N. H. 250, 253.

Doe, C. J.

The payment having been made and received on a general account of many items of existing legal indebtedness, without any express application of it by either party to any particular items, the law infers the parties intended a just application at the time of payment. There is no ground for a presumption that they then intended the application should be made at a future time, at the date of the writ in this action. The question is, What was their intention when the payment was made? At that time they did not anticipate this suit. The legal presumption is, that they applied the payment to’the oldest items due at the time of the payment, there being no equity or other evidence tending to show an intention to make a different application. *Parks*v. Ingram, 22 N. H. 283, 295; *Thompson*v. *Phelan,*22 N. H. 339, 350.

*Case discharged. ■*

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
#### The First National Bank of Elmira *v.*John T. Rathbun.

Motions for reargument denied. Opinion by

Boardman, J., and by Learned, P. J., dissenting.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending May 17, 2008

|Filer                  | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                          
|---------------------- | ----------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|GREENFIELD BANCORP MHC | * 3A1       | Greenfield Bancorp, MHC, Greenfield, Massachusetts to acquire 100% of the capital stock of Greenfield Co-operative Bank, Greenfield, Massachusetts pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the BHC Act in connection with the reorganization of Greenfield Bancorp, MHC, Greenfield, Massachusetts, from mutual to stock form. | Newspaper:06/08/2008Federal Register:06/02/2008
|Newspaper:             | 06/08/2008 
|Federal Register:      | 06/02/2008 
|Hyde Park Bancorp, MHC | * 3A1       | Hyde Park Bancorp, MHC, Hyde Park, Massachusetts to become a bank holding company pursuant to section 3(a)(1) of the BHC Act in connection with the reorganization of Hyde Park Savings Bank, Hyde Park, Massachusetts into a mutual bank holding company structure.                                                  | Newspaper:06/05/2008Federal Register:06/09/2008
|Newspaper:             | 06/05/2008 
|Federal Register:      | 06/09/2008 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

United States of America and 

State of Michigan, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital 

d/b/a Allegiance Health, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-cv-12311 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

Mag. Judge David R. Grand 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORAL 

ARGUMENT AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO CONTINUE 

TRIAL DATE [110] 

Before the Court is defendant Henry Ford Allegiance Health’s 

motion for oral argument regarding the question of whether the Court 

has jurisdiction over this case, and to continue the trial date. (Dkt. 

110.) 

The Court finds that oral argument may aid the Court in ruling on 

the issues raised by the Court’s July 20, 2017 order. (Dkt. 107.) 

Accordingly, Allegiance Health’s motion for oral argument is 

GRANTED. 
2 

The trial date has already been continued. Defendant’s motion on 

this issue is therefore DENIED AS MOOT. 

It is ORDERED that oral argument will be held on Thursday, 

October 5, 2017 at 10:00a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 17, 2017 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 17, 2017. 

s/Shawna Burns 

SHAWNA BURNS 

Case Manager
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACK SMITH,

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 15-11910

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, ET. AL.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO

APPOINT COUNSEL [ECF NO. 10]

This is a pro se civil rights complaint filed by Michigan prisoner Jack Smith.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was wrongfully denied parole on three occasions.

He asserts that the denial of parole: (1) violated his rights to equal protection; (2)

violated state law; (3) was the result of retaliatory conduct; and (4) violated the Eighth

Amendment. The Court summarily dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2). (See Order, ECF No. 8).

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for “immediate reconsideration”

and for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s motion essentially argues that the Court did

not specifically find the complaint “frivolous” as he claims is required by §

1

4:15-cv-11910-LVP-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 07/12/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 69
1915(e)(2), and therefore the complaint should not have been summarily dismissed.

(ECF No. 10 at Pg. ID 64.) 

U.S. Dist. Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for

reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant

demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled

and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. Ward

v. Wolfenbarger, 340 F. Supp. 2d 773, 774 (E.D. Mich. 2004); Hence v. Smith, 49 F.

Supp. 2d 547, 550-51 (E.D. Mich. 1999). A motion for reconsideration which merely

presents “the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable

implication,” shall be denied. Ward, 340 F. Supp. 2d at 774.

Here, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, after conducting a careful analysis, the

Court found that each of Plaintiff’s claims failed to state a claim on which relief may

be granted, and the complaint was therefore subject to summary dismissal under §

1915(e)(2). (ECF No. 8 at Pg. ID 56-61.) Plaintiff does not present any substantive

argument in his motion undermining the Court’s disposition of the case. Accordingly, 

2

4:15-cv-11910-LVP-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 07/12/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 70
Petitioner’s motion for immediate reconsideration and appointment of counsel is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Linda V. Parker 

LINDA V. PARKER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 12, 2016

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

and/or pro se parties on this date, July 12, 2016, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class

mail.

S/Kelly Winslow for Richard Loury 

Case Manager

3

4:15-cv-11910-LVP-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 07/12/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 71
§ 393.6 America's Marine Highway Program Project grants. ( a ) *How does MARAD administer the AMHP grant program?* ( 1 ) The Associate Administrator for Intermodal Systems Development manages the program under the guidance and the immediate administrative direction of the Maritime Administrator.
( 2 ) MARAD establishes grant program priorities as reflected in its grant opportunity announcements and, from time-to-time, issues clarifying guidance documents through the MARAD Web site and the Federal Register.
( 3 ) The Administrator makes funding recommendations to the Secretary, who has the authority to award grants.
( b ) *How does MARAD make grant opportunities known?* ( 1 ) MARAD determines which grant opportunities it will offer, and establishes application deadlines and programmatic requirements when grant funds become available to the AMHP.
( 2 ) The MARAD staff prepares Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) announcements consisting of all information necessary to apply for each grant and publishes the announcement in the Federal Register and on *grants.gov.*
( c ) *How may an applicant apply for an AMHP grant?* ( 1 ) Applicants may apply for a grant using *grants.gov* or, in connection with a Federal Register announcement, by submitting the necessary information to the AMHP Office in electronic form.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
1 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20160 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CLELAN JONES, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO EXTEND REPORT DATE (ECF No. 62) 

 On February 24, 2022, the Court sentenced Defendant Clelan Jones to a term 

of imprisonment of one year and one day for violating his probation. (See Judgment, 

ECF No. 58.) The Bureau of Prisons has now directed Jones to report to FCI 

Hazelton to begin serving his sentence. Jones has been ordered to report by June 9, 

2022. (See Order, ECF No. 60.) 

 On June 7, 2022, Jones filed a motion for compassionate release. (See Mot. 

for Compassionate Release, ECF No. 61.) Jones has also filed a motion to extend 

his report date. (See Mot. to Extend, ECF No. 62.) The Court will give Jones’ motion 

for compassionate release serious consideration, and it needs time to do so before 

Jones reports to begin serving his sentence. Accordingly, for the reason explained 

above, and the reasons explained in Jones’ motion to extend his report date, Jones’ 

Case 4:15-cr-20160-MFL-MJH ECF No. 63, PageID.219 Filed 06/08/22 Page 1 of 2
    2 

motion to extend his report date (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED. Jones shall report to 

begin serving his sentence on July 8, 2022, unless given a later reporting date by the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons. All conditions of release previously ordered by this Court 

shall remain as ordered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 8, 2022 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on June 8, 2022, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126 

Case 4:15-cr-20160-MFL-MJH ECF No. 63, PageID.220 Filed 06/08/22 Page 2 of 2