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



HYDRODYNEX, INC.



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the periodic Report of HYDRODYNEX, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, RONALD KUNISAKI, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: April 20, 2009

| |                 |                    
| | --------------- | -------------------
| |                 |                    
| |                
| | By:             | /s/ Ronald Kunisaki
| | Ronald Kunisaki
| |                



In connection with the periodic Report of HYDRODYNEX, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, RICHARD KUNISAKI, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: April 20, 2009

| |                  |                     
| | ---------------- | --------------------
| |                  |                     
| |                 
| | By:              | /s/ Richard Kunisaki
| | Richard Kunisaki
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION - 1

TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING OPPOSITION

U.S. Cazares, et al., CR06-5005FDB

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 428-3800

Judge Franklin D. Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO. CR06-5005FDB

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER

) GRANTING UNOPPOSED

v. ) MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

) FOR FILING OF 

) GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION

ANTONIA CAZARES, et al, ) TO DEFENDANT CAZARES’ 

) MOTION FOR SEVERANCE

Defendants. ) 

_________________________________)

Upon the Government’s unopposed motion requesting an extension of the 

Government's deadline for responding to Defendant Antonia Cazares' Motion to Sever 

Case From Co-Defendant Reyes,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government’s Motion is GRANTED and the

 Government’s opposition will be due on January 5, 2007.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2006. A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Michael Dion 

MICHAEL DION

Assistant United States Attorney 

Case 3:06-cr-05005-RBL Document 58 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

April 2, 1969

No. P69/88.

protests 66/2500, etc. (New York).

#### D. P. Harris Hdw. & Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of electric horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *S. Hiller & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 79, C.D. 3082), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: tmelnick1965@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:16:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Thomas Melnick

Herndon, VA 20170
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 559 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 559

 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend 
the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of 
   clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2007

 Mr. Boehner submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend 
the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of 
   clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the 
resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of 
Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be 
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit to be 
offered by the majority leader or his designee which may not contain 
instructions.
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER REGARDING

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PETER TILTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0098RSL

ORDER REGARDING

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM

In answering the Special Verdict Form in this case, the jury has found that Michelle

Conlin did not make a clear promise to keep Peter Tilton’s identity confidential in any article

she wrote for BusinessWeek using information that he or Brian DesRoches told her during their

interviews. The Court considers that finding to be an advisory opinion on plaintiff’s claim for

promissory estoppel, which is an equitable matter for the Court to decide. The Court agrees

with the jury’s finding. Based on the jury’s advisory finding and for the reasons the Court

explained on the record, the Court finds for defendants on plaintiff’s claim for promissory 

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 264 Filed 12/11/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER REGARDING

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM- 2

estoppel.

 

DATED this 11th day of December, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 264 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 2
From: augsbach@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:21:55 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Linda Augsbach

Tarpon Springs, FL 34689
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

EON-NET, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-2129MJP

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF EONNET’S MOTION TO STAY

THE IMPOSITION OF

SANCTIONS PENDING

APPEAL

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to stay the imposition of

sanctions pending appeal. (Dkt. No. 91). Having considered the materials submitted by

the parties, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

As Defendant notes, Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) provides the means for a party to obtain

a stay of a monetary judgment pending appeal. Rule 62(d) provides that a party may

obtain a stay “by giving a supersedeas bond.” Plaintiff suggests that the Court should

waive the bond requirement or require that “only a de minimis bond be required,”

asserting that “Plaintiff’s counsel is a small law firm of relatively modest financial

means” and that “[i]f counsel were required to pay the Judgment, it would be financially

ruinous to his firm.” (Reply at 2). However, Plaintiff’s counsel has offered no evidence

to support these conclusory assertions. There is also no evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 100 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER – 2

is unable to afford the expense of posting a bond or has no alternative forms of security

that may be offered.

Plaintiff’s briefing is devoted in large part to arguing that a stay should be granted

under the factors that courts typically consider in deciding whether to stay an injunctive

order under Rule 62(c) – e.g., likelihood of success on appeal, whether irreparable harm

would result if a stay does not issue, balance of hardships, and where the public interest

lies. Even assuming for the sake of argument that these factors may be applicable in an

appeal of a monetary judgment, the Court would decline to order a stay. Plaintiff’s

counsel has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on appeal, nor is there competent

evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel would be irreparably harmed absent a stay. Finally,

Plaintiff’s counsel suggests that a stay would serve the public interest by “enabling

individual inventors and their counsel – who in this case collectively have limited

financial resources – to enforce patents against infringers with comparatively vast

financial resources.” (Reply at 2). This argument is without merit, particularly in light of

the conduct of Plaintiff’s counsel that led to the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions in this

case. 

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated this 18th day of January, 2007.

s/Marsha J. Pechman 

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 100 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Taylor, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 665]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered September 28, 1993, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he committed assault in the first *706degree is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s challenges to the admission of testimony relating to alleged prior abuse of his son, and the prosecutor’s summation remarks about such testimony are, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski, supra,*at 250). In any event, it is submitted that the testimony to which the defendant takes issue did not violate the trial court’s pretrial ruling on the admissibility of such testimony, and was relevant to negate the defense of accident *(see, People v Henson,*33 NY2d 63, 72; *People v Kinder,*75 AD2d 34, 45). Further, since the pretrial ruling specifically allowed such testimony at trial, the prosecutor’s summation remarks regarding this evidence were proper and fully supported by the record.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court improperly failed to sanction the prosecutor for the neurosurgeon’s loss of a consultation sheet on which he had indicated that he suspected child abuse *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski, supra,*at 250). In any event, the neurosurgeon’s consultation sheet was not *Rosario*material *(see, People v Washington,*196 AD2d 346, 351, *affd*86 NY2d 189).

The defendant’s remaining claims of error are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or harmless. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
|                                  
|----------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 8.1                       
|SUBSIDIARIES OF SAFE BULKERS, INC.

The following
companies are subsidiaries of Safe Bulkers, Inc. as of February 25, 2012.

|                                       |                               
|-------------------------------------- | ------------------------------
|Subsidiary                             | Jurisdiction
 of Incorporation
|                                       |                               
|Avstes
 Shipping Corporation           | Liberia                       
|Efragel
 Shipping Corporation          | Liberia                       
|Eniadefhi
 Shipping Corporation        | Liberia                       
|Eniaprohi
 Shipping Corporation        | Liberia                       
|Eptaprohi
 Shipping Corporation        | Liberia                       
|Kerasies
 Shipping Corporation         | Liberia                       
|Marathassa
 Shipping Corporation       | Liberia                       
|Marindou
 Shipping Corporation         | Liberia                       
|Marinouki Shipping
 Corporation        | Liberia                       
|Maxdeka
 Shipping Corporation          | Marshall
 Islands             
|Maxdekatria
 Shipping Corporation      | Liberia                       
|Maxdodeka
 Shipping Corporation        | Liberia                       
|Maxeikosi
 Shipping Corporation        | Liberia                       
|Maxeikosiena
 Shipping Corporation     | Liberia                       
|Maxeikositria
 Shipping Corporation    | Liberia                       
|Maxeikositessera
 Shipping Corporation | Liberia                       
|Maxeikosipente
 Shipping Corporation   | Liberia                       
|Maxeikosiexi
 Shipping Corporation     | Liberia                       
|Maxeikosiepta
 Shipping Corporation    | Liberia                       
|Maxenteka
 Shipping Corporation        | Marshall
 Islands             
|Maxpente
 Shipping Corporation         | Liberia                       
|Maxtessera
 Shipping Corporation       | Marshall
 Islands             
|Pelea
 Shipping Ltd.                   | Liberia                       
|Pemer
 Shipping Ltd.                   | Liberia                       
|Petra
 Shipping Ltd.                   | Liberia                       
|Shikoku
 Friendship Shipping Company   | Marshall
 Islands             
|Soffive
 Shipping Corporation          | Liberia                       
|Staloudi
 Shipping Corporation         | Liberia                       
|Shikokutessera
 Shipping Inc           | Marshall
 Islands             
|Shikokupente
 Shipping Inc             | Marshall
 Islands             
|Shikokuexi
 Shipping Inc               | Marshall
 Islands             
|Shikokuepta
 Shipping Inc.             | Marshall
 Islands             
|S.B. Sea
 Venture Company Limited      | Cyprus                        

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72929-72930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Labor Advisory 
Committee for Trade Negotiation and Trade Policy. Date, Time, Place: 
December 16, 2013; 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; U.S. Department of Labor, 
Secretary's Conference Room, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
    Purpose: The meeting will include a review and discussion of 
current issues which influence U.S. trade policy. Potential U.S. 
negotiating objectives and bargaining positions in current and 
anticipated trade negotiations will be discussed. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 
2155(f)(2)(A), it has been determined that the meeting will be 
concerned with matters the disclosure of which would seriously 
compromise the Government's negotiating objectives or bargaining 
positions. Therefore, the meeting is exempt from the requirements of 
subsections (a) and (b) of sections 10 and 11 of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (relating to open meetings, public notice, public 
participation, and public availability of

[[Page 72930]]

documents). 5 U.S.C. App. Accordingly, the meeting will be closed to 
the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne M. Zollner, Chief, Trade Policy 
and Negotiations Division; Phone: (202) 693-4890.

    Signed at Washington, DC, the 26 day of November, 2013.
Carol Pier,
Acting Deputy Under Secretary, International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-29019 Filed 12-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-28-P
```