alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
                                                     ------------

          CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In  connection with the accompanying Annual Report on  Form
10K of Admiral Financial Corp. for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2003, Wm. Lee Popham, Chairman and CEO of Admiral Financial Corp.
hereby  certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of his knowledge and belief, that:

     1.  Such Annual Report on Form 10K for the period ended June
     30,  2003,  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 such Annual Report on Form
     10K for the period ended June 30, 2003, fairly presents,  in
     all  material respects, the financial condition and  results
     of operations of Admiral Financial Corp.

                                   ADMIRAL FINANCIAL CORP.


     Date:  September 29, 2003     By: /s/Wm. Lee Popham
                                      ---------------------------
                                      Wm. Lee Popham, Chairman,
                                      CEO and CFO
#### Mary A. Parisen *Appellant, v.*John Townshend and Patrick Gilfoyle, *Respondents*.

Judgment affirmed, with leave to serve amended complaint within twenty days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, on payment of costs of appeal and of the demurrer.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2498 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2498

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 844 North Rush Street in 
   Chicago, Illinois, as the ``William O. Lipinski Federal Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The Federal building located at 844 North Rush Street in Chicago, 
Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ``William O. Lipinski 
Federal Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William O. 
Lipinski Federal Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 

SOLUTIONS, U.S.A., INC., 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-11254 

 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

v. 

 

LOWERY CORPORATION, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. 236] 

AND DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE [DOC. 221] 

 On April 23, 2018, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford issued a Report and 

Recommendation [Doc. 236] recommending that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance 

Company’s Motion to Intervene [Doc. 221] be DENIED. No party filed objections within 

the fourteen day period pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, which is well 

reasoned and supported by the cited authorities. 

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s Motion to Intervene [Doc. 221] is 

DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED. 

 S/Victoria A. Roberts 

 Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: May 15, 2018
#### MAX LANDOW, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. LOUIS VILENSKY AND BESSIE VILENSKY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Submitted October 12, 1928

Decided March 28, 1929.

Before G-um mere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

Eor the appellant, *John Bauffenbart.*

For the respondent, *Morris Bloom.*

Per Curiam.

The trial judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff in this cause and then granted the defendants a rule to show cause reserving exceptions, which rule was duly argued and was afterward discharged. The case comes before us on an appeal from the judgment below. We fail to find any ruling of the trial court to which proper exception was taken, which is brought to us for review. There were several exceptions during the course of the trial but none of these is assigned for error in the grounds of appeal. These latter are four in number. The first is, “no sale was made nor was any service performed which entitled plaintiff to a recovery upon the contract sued on.” The second is, “the right of plaintiff to a recovery was contingent upon the occurrence of a day of final settlement under the contract, and no day of final settlement occurred and no final settlement was had.” The third *340is, “the contract is contrary to public policy and unenforceable.”

No one of these three grounds challenges any ruling of' the trial court; they merely state propositions of law, of' fact, or of mixed law and fact. It is, of course, settled that, reversal cannot be had upon grounds such as these.

The fourth ground is, that “the learned trial judge erroneously directed a verdict for the plaintiff.” Page v35. This, is a proper ground of appeal, but unfortunately it is not supported by any exception taken at the time, and the rule is likewise well settled that unless there is an exception there is nothing to review.

The judgment will be affirmed.
#### § 45.101 Purpose.

This subpart prescribes conditions that a vessel must meet to be eligible for assignment of a loadline under this part.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 106 (Monday, June 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 30862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2785]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice; Correction

May 23, 2007.

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, May 31, 2007.

Place: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: Open.

Matters to be Considered: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following in open session: Jaxun v. Asarco, LLC, Docket No. WEST 2006-
416-DM. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in 
requiring a miner pursuing a claim under section 105(c)(3) of the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(3), to 
obtain representation or risk dismissal of his claim.)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subjects to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

Contact person for more info: Jean Ellen, (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 
for TDD Relay 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 07-2785 Filed 5-31-07; 11:28 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
§ 32.56-20 Insulation of exterior boundaries: Superstructures and deckhouses—T/ALL. The following exterior boundaries of superstructures and deckhouses that contain accommodation, service, and control spaces, except wheelhouses, must be insulated to “A-60” Class: ( a ) The exterior boundaries that face the cargo area.
( b ) The portion of the exterior bulkheads and decks within 3 meters (10 feet) of these boundaries.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,693
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,103
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,771
<PP&E>                                          20,406
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 702,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          961,751
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,100
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   702,021
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (109,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (109,498)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (109,498)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.016)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.016)


</TABLE>
#### § 64.29 Tank saddles.

If a tank is not completely supported by a framework, it must be supported by two or more external saddles, each of which extends to 120 degrees or more of the shell circumference.
Exhibit
      32.2





**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 for the Quarter
      Ended March 31, 2008 (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.








Date:
                May 15, 2008
            /s/
                Richard RalloRichard
                RalloChief
                Financial Officer






**A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to American Medical Alert Corp. and will be retained by American
      Medical Alert Corp. 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  Annual  Report of  Interlink  Electronics,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, E.
Michael Thoben,  III,  Chairman,  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  the  best  of my
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 operations of
         the Company.

/S/  E. MICHAEL THOBEN, III
----------------------------------------------
E. Michael Thoben, III
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2007
§ 50.05-1 General. ( a ) The regulations in this subchapter apply to the marine engineering details of installations on vessels required to be inspected and certificated under other subchapters in this chapter as described in § 50.01-10.
( b ) The regulations in this subchapter are not retroactive in effect, except as provided in § 50.05-5 or § 50.05-10, or if specifically so provided for at the time specific regulations are amended or added.
( c ) The requirements in this subchapter revised or added subsequent to July 1, 1969, are applicable to the installations contracted for after the effective dates of such requirements. Normally, materials, items of equipment, or installations in vessels which have been accepted and passed as satisfactory and meeting the applicable requirements in this subchapter then in effect and which are maintained in good and serviceable condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, may be continued in use until replacement is deemed necessary by such officer or as specified in the regulations.
( d ) Items of equipment, which are in use on vessels, previously approved by the Commandant but not complying with the latest specification requirements may be continued in use so long as they are maintained in good and serviceable condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, until replacement is deemed necessary by such officer or as specified in the regulations.
( e ) Industrial systems and components on mobile offshore drilling units must meet subpart 58.60 of this subchapter.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18808, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 73-251, 43 FR 56799, Dec. 4, 1978; CGD 77-147, 47 FR 21809, May 20, 1982; USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58459, Sept. 29, 2000]
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1608

To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that the prohibitions

against guns in school zones have the requisite nexus with interstate

or foreign commerce.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 10, 1995

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that the

prohibitions against guns in school zones have the requisite nexus with interstate or foreign commerce.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. COMMERCE NEXUS IN THE PROHIBITIONS

4 AGAINST GUNS IN SCHOOL ZONES.

5 Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is

6 amended in each of paragraphs (2)(A) and (3)(A) by in7 serting ‘‘that has moved in or that otherwise affects inter8 state or foreign commerce,’’ after ‘‘firearm’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20794 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

WILLIAM MCARTHUR SMITH, 

 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS 

WITHOUT COST TO DEFENDANT AND DENYING APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

 On June 13, 2016 Defendant William McArthur Smith filed a motion requesting 

production of records without cost, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

See ECF Nos. 34, 35. Smith states that he required the records “in order to effectively present 

arguments in a legal action Smith is currently preparing.” Smith has not provided the Court with 

any further information regarding the character of his forthcoming legal proceeding. Assuming 

that Smith seeks the free transcripts to assist him in filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he 

must not only be certified to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, but also must 

set forth specific factual allegations in support of his forthcoming § 2255 motion. See United 

States v. Chambers, 788 F. Supp. 334, 338 (E.D. Mich. 1992). Only then will the Court decide 

whether Smith should be granted a free transcript. 

Because Smith has not even stated whether he intends to file a § 2255 motion, much less 

set forth any specific factual allegations in support of such a motion, Smith’s motion will be 

denied without prejudice. Smith’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will similarly be 

denied without prejudice. 

1:14-cr-20794-TLL-PTM Doc # 36 Filed 06/22/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 136
- 2 - 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Smith’s motion requesting production of 

records without cost, ECF No. 34, is DENIED without prejudice. 

It is further ORDERED that Defendant Smith’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, ECF No. 35, is DENIED without prejudice.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: June 22, 2016 

 

PROOF 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 June 22, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

1:14-cr-20794-TLL-PTM Doc # 36 Filed 06/22/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 137
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 MYR Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William A. Koertner, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

May 10,
2010

/s/ WILLIAM A. KOERTNER Chief Executive Officer and President


---
5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG Doc # 40 Filed 08/04/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 72
5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG Doc # 40 Filed 08/04/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 73
5:14-cr-20425-JEL-DRG Doc # 40 Filed 08/04/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 74
98-2143.

#### State v. Ward.

Hamilton App. No. C-970683. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that no conflict exists within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. IY(2)(B). See *State v. Cook*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570. This cause is therefore dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
§ 535.607 Failure to comply with requests for additional information. ( a ) A failure to comply with a request for additional information results when a person filing an agreement, or an officer, director, partner, agent, or employee thereof fails to substantially respond to the request or does not file a satisfactory statement of reasons for noncompliance. An adequate response is one which directly addresses the Commission's request. When a response is not received by the Commission within a specified time, failure to comply will have occurred.
( b ) The Commission may, pursuant to section 6(i) of the Act (46 U.S.C. 41307(c)), request relief from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia when it considers that there has been a failure to substantially comply with a request for additional information. The Commission may request that the court: ( 1 ) Order compliance with the request;
( 2 ) Extend the review period until there has been substantial compliance; or
( 3 ) Grant other equitable relief that under the circumstances seems necessary or appropriate.
( c ) Where there has been a failure to substantially comply, section 6(i)(2) of the Act (46 U.S.C. 41307(c)(2)) provides that the court shall extend the review period until there has been substantial compliance.
[69 FR 64414, Nov. 4, 2004, as amended at 74 FR 50729, Oct. 1, 2009]
§ 64.93 Pump controls. ( a ) A pressure gauge must be installed— ( 1 ) On the pump discharge;
( 2 ) Near the pump controls; and
( 3 ) Visible to the operator.
( b ) A pump must have a remote, quick acting, manual shutdown that is conspicuously labeled and located in an easily accessible area away from the pump. The quick acting, manual shutdown for remote operation must provide a means of stopping the pump power unit.
Presidential Documents

31711 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 110 

Friday, June 8, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2007–22 of June 5, 2007 

Partial Resumption of Travel to Lebanon To Promote Peace 

and Security 

Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation 

By virtue of the authority vested in me by 49 U.S.C. 40106(b) and for 

the purpose of promoting peace and security in Lebanon, I hereby determine 

that the prohibition of transportation services to Lebanon established by 

Presidential Determination 85–14 of July 1, 1985, as amended by Presidential 

Determination 92–41 of August 17, 1992, and Presidential Determination 

98–32 of June 19, 1998, is hereby further amended to permit U.S. air carriers 

under contract to the United States Government to engage in foreign air 

transportation to and from Lebanon of passengers, including U.S. and nonU.S. citizens, and their accompanying baggage; of goods for humanitarian 

purposes; and of any other cargo or materiel. 

All other prohibitions set forth in the above-referenced Presidential determinations remain in effect. 

You are directed to implement this determination immediately. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal 

Register. 

[FR Doc. 07–2886 

Filed 6–7–07; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4910–62–M 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS-1GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>