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 This certification is provided pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2004 of Horizon Offshore, Inc. (the Company) as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report). I, Bill J. Lam, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities 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/ Bill J. Lam  Bill J. Lam
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2004
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



---



We consent to the inclusion in the Form
10KSB being filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Hartville Group, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated January 29, 2004, relating to our audits of the consolidated balance sheets of Hartville Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the related Consolidated Statements of Income, Consolidated Changes in Stockholders Equity, and Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years then ended.



Pollard-Kelley Auditing Services, Inc.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Terance L. Kelley                 
|Pollard-Kelley Auditing Services, Inc.



Fairlawn, Ohio

January 29, 2004
# March 2015

# April 2015

# May 2015

# June 2015

# July 2015

# August 2015

# September 2015

# October 2015

# November 2015

# December 2015

# January 2016

# February 2016

# March 2016

# April 2016

# May 2016

# June 2016

# July 2016

# August 2016

# September 2016

# FY 2017 October 2016

# November 2016

# December 2016

# January 2017
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                         WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
                                  FORM 10-QSB
                          QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2004

                       CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS

I, Edward J. McKeon, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Western
Reserve Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify the following:

      -     This Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Sections
            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 position and results of operations
            of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of and for the periods
            presented.

Date:  August 12, 2004                     /s/ Edward J. McKeon
                                           Edward J. McKeon
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

                                    Page 33
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I,Philip C. S. Yin, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of AXT, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Dated: August 9, 2005 | By:    | /s/ Philip C. S. Yin    |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                  |   | Philip C. S. Yin        |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# C_2016441EN.01001302.xml

| 28.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/13

---

Action brought on 29 September 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-511/16)

(2016/C 441/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek, G. von Rintelen, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that in not adopting by 1 June 2015 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 amending Council Directives 92/58/EEC, 92/85/EEC, 94/33/EC, 98/24/EC and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in order to align them to Regulation 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, or at least in not informing the Commission of those measures, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2014/27/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that in not adopting by 1 June 2015 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2014/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 amending Council Directives 92/58/EEC, 92/85/EEC, 94/33/EC, 98/24/EC and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in order to align them to Regulation 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, or at least in not informing the Commission of those measures, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2014/27/EU;

| — | impose upon the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, under Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 8 710 with effect from the day of delivery of the judgment of the Court in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the measures transposing Directive 2014/27/EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose upon the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, under Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 8 710 with effect from the day of delivery of the judgment of the Court in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to communicate the measures transposing Directive 2014/27/EU;

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive expired on 1 June 2015.

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2014/27/EU within the period for its transposition laid down in Article 6(1) of that directive.

---
Exhibit 32.2
 WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-Q
Quarter ended March 31, 2009
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS
  
    
    This Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 position and results of operations of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of
and for the periods presented.
 /s/ Cynthia A. Mahl

Cynthia A. Mahl
Executive Vice President/Chief Financial OfficerMay 15, 2009
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3056

ANDY BOCTOR,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

in SF3330080342-I-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Department of Veterans Affairs' motion for an

extension of time, until May 28, 2009, to file its brief,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

MAY 2 6 2009	/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date	 Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Andy Boctor usbierdecolcu m9len

Hillary A. Stem, Esq.

s8	

MAY 2 8 2009

lto HUKohLt

CLERK
# March 2015

# April 2015

# May 2015

# June 2015

# July 2015

# August 2015

# September 2015

# October 2015

# November 2015

# December 2015

# January 2016

# February 2016

# March 2016

# April 2016
San Joaquin Valley 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

October 18,2007 

Mr. Mike Guzzetta, Manager 

Rule Evaluations Section 

California Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 9581 2 

Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

Attached is the Rule Action Package for the solvent cleaning portion of eleven District 

rules, which were adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Governing Board on September 20, 2007. The following District rules were affected: 

Rule 4603 (Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products) 

Rule 4604 (Can and Coil Coating Operations) 

Rule 4605 (Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations) 

Rule 4606 (Wood Products Coating Operations) 

Rule 4607 (Graphic Arts) 

Rule 4612 (Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations - Phase II) 

Rule 4653 (Adhesives) 

Rule 4661 (Organic Solvents) 

Rule 4662 (Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations) 

Rule 4663 (Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal) 

Rule 4684 (Polyester Resin Operations) 

We request that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) transmit these eleven rules 

and the appropriate documentation to the Ur~ited States Enviror~mental Protection 

Agency (EPA) as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. 

Seyed Sadredin 

Executive OirectorIAir Pollution Control Officer 

Northern Region Central Region (Main Office] Southern Region 

4800 Enterprise Way 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue 2700 M Street, Suite 275 

Modesto, CA 95356-8718 Fresno, CA 93726.0244 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2373 

Tel: (209) 557-6400 FAX: (209) 557-6475 Tel: (5591 230-6000 FAX: (559) 230-6061 Tel: (661) 326-6900 FAX: (661) 326-6985 

www.valleyair.org 

Prinled on recycled paper 0 
Mike Guzzetta 

October 1 8,2007 

page 2 

Included with this Rule Action Package are the following attachments: 

1. ARB SIP Completeness Checklist 

2. ARB APCDIAQMD Rule Evaluation Form 

3. Clean Copy of eleven District rules 

4. StrikeoutIUnderline Copy of eleven District r~~les 

5. Governirrg Board Resolution 

6. Evidence of Public Hearing 

7. Governing Board Memo 

8. Staff Report with appendices. 

The Rule Action Package is being transmitted by e-mail to ARB staff. If you have any 

questions, please contact Sandra Lowe-Leseth by phone at (559) 230-5834 or by e-mail 

at sandra.loweleseth@vaIleyair.org. The District thanks you and yol-lr staff for your 

assistance. 

Sincerelv, 

Scott Nester 

Director of Planning 

Attachments
### 7 Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action (e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include access, testing, and close-up) Labor

cost (@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor +

parts) Number of

U.S. Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection (Group 10) 120.0 $10,200.

00 $10,200.00 

### 36 $367,200.00



### Inspection (Group 4) 80.0 $6,800.0

0 $6,800.00 

### 1 $6,800.00



### Inspection (Group 7) 50.0 $4,250.0

0 $4,250.00 

### 3 $12,750.00



### Inspection (Group 8) 80.0 $6,800.0

0 $6,800.00 

### 2 $13,600.00



### Post Modification Inspection 216.0 $18,360.

00 $18,360.00 

### 42 $771,120.00



### Modification 387.0 $32,895.

00 $32,895.00 

### 2 $65,790.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,237,260 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action (e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work-hours (include access,testing, and closeup) Labor cost (@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00
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 GSV, Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 (the  "Report"),  I, Gilad Gat, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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:

1) The Report fully complies with the  requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.

                        By: /s/ Gilad Gat
                            -------------
                            Gilad Gat
                            Chief Executive Officer
                            Chief Financial Officer
                            August 12,2005
# C_2017369EN.01001102.xml

| 30.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2017 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Weetabix (Alpenschmaus)

(Case T-103/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Alpenschmaus - Earlier EU word mark ALPEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 369/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially E. Strittmatter and A. Folliard-Monguiral, and subsequently A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Weetabix Ltd (Kettering, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Finger and T. Farkas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 2725/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Weetabix and Aldi Einkauf.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

1

---
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1285 

AN ACT 

To allow the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the 

Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated 

Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, the Confederated 

Tribes of Warm Springs, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns 

Paiute Tribes to lease or transfer certain lands. 
2 

†S 1285 ES

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Oregon Tribal Eco5 nomic Development Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED TO VALIDATE LAND 

7 TRANSACTIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, without further approval, ratification, or au10 thorization by the United States, the Confederated Tribes 

11 of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, the Confed12 erated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, 

13 the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, the 

14 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Cow Creek 

15 Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, the Klamath Tribes, 

16 and the Burns Paiute Tribes may lease, sell, convey, war17 rant, or otherwise transfer all or any part of its interests 

18 in any real property that is not held in trust by the United 

19 States for the benefit of such tribe. 

20 (b) TRUST LAND NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing in this 

21 section shall— 

22 (1) authorize the Confederated Tribes of Coos, 

23 Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, the Confed24 erated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of 

25 Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of 
3 

†S 1285 ES

1 Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, 

2 the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, 

3 the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns Paiute Tribes to 

4 lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all 

5 or any part of an interest in any real property that 

6 is held in trust by the United States for the benefit 

7 of such tribe; or 

8 (2) affect the operation of any law governing 

9 leasing, selling, conveying, warranting, or otherwise 

10 transferring any interest in such trust land. 

Passed the Senate November 29, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1285 

AN ACT 

To allow the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower 

Paiute Tribes to lease or transfer certain lands. of Indians, the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns Springs, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Warm egon, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of OrUmpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, the Confederated
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTOPHER WADE HAMMOND,

Petitioner,

v.

MARILYN BROOKS,

Respondents.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 04-5783

Order

YOHN, J. 

And now, this 29th day of May 2009, upon careful consideration of Christopher Wade

Hammond’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the government’s

response, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice,

and petitioner’s objections thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED;

2. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice is

APPROVED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED and DENIED;

4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case for statistical purposes; and

5. Petitioner having failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, there is no ground to issue a certificate of appealability.

s/ William H. Yohn Jr., Judge

William H. Yohn Jr., Judge

Case 2:04-cv-05783-WY Document 18 Filed 05/29/09 Page 1 of 1
#### SILVER v. INDEMNITY INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA.

Civil Action No. 2423.

United States District Court D. Connecticut.

Oct. 26, 1948.

David M. Reilly, of New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff.

Donald F. Keefe, of Gumbart, Corbin, Tyler & Cooper, all of New Haven, Conn., for defendant.

HINCKS, District Judge.

This action was brought in the State Court and promptly upon its removal to this court by the defendant the plaintiff filed with the Clerk a written notice of withdrawal. A written confirmation of this notice sent to the defendant was not received until after the defendant had filed its answer. The defendant now asks to have the case assigned for trial and the plaintiff opposes on the ground that there is no case before the court to assign: that upon the filing of her motion the case terminated and the jurisdiction of the court was exhausted.

The defendant contends that a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a), 28 U.S.C. A., is a “written notice” which under Rule 5(a) and (d) must be filed *and served.*But Rule 4l, like Rule 73(a), expressly calls for a “filing”; the requirement of Rule 5 for serving is omitted. The omission is significant and clearly betokens, I think, an intent that notices under Rules 41 and 73 become effective upon filing without service. It may be noticed that Professor Moore in his treatise on the rules recognizes that a notice of appeal under Rule 73 is completely effective upon filing without service by the appellant. Moore’s Federal Practice (2nd Ed., Vol. 2), Pg. 1321. The similarity of Rule 41(a) requires a similar ruling. This conclusion is further supported by the provisions of Rules 31(a), 33 and 36 relating to notices of depositions and interrogatories, and to requests for admission, each of which contains express provision for service. Thus the absence of an express provision for service in Rule 41 is added indication that no such requirement was intended to effect a voluntary dismissal.

It is accordingly ordered that the defendant’s motion be denied.