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





In
      connection with the Annual report of Pacificap Entertainment Holdings, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Edward Litwak, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Pacificap Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Pacificap
      Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
                May 19, 2006
            
            By:
            */s/
                EDWARD LITWAK*Edward
                LitwakPrincipal
                Executive Officer
Before the First Division,

July 5, 1945

No. 50333.

#### Protests 529745-G, etc., of General Hide & Skin Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the goatskins r ~e similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Win^jrad Bros.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7304

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JACK EARL VANCE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Elkins

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 2:05

- cr
- 00043

- JPB

- 1 )

Submitted : April 18, 2019 Decided: April 22, 2019

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jack Earl Vance, Appellant Pro Se. Traci Michelle Cook, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jack Earl Vance appeals the district court’s omnibus order denying the various postjudgment motions Vance filed seeking, among other relief, the production of evidence presented in his federal criminal proceedings an d trial transcripts. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Vance , No. 2:05

- cr
- 00043

- JPB

- 1 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 9, 2018). We dispense with oral arg ument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1


                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  September  30,  2002,  (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.



/s/ Gilad Gat
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2002
# C_2018166EN.01001201.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-537/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/6/EC - Market manipulation - Penalties - National legislation which provides for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same acts - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Criminal nature of the administrative penalties - Existence of the same offence - Article 52(1) - Limitations to the ne bis in idem principle - Conditions))

(2018/C 166/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Garlsson Real Estate SA, in liquidation, Stefano Ricucci, Magiste International SA

Applicants:

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against a person in respect of unlawful conduct consisting in market manipulation for which the same person has already been finally convicted, in so far as that conviction is, given the harm caused to the company by the offence committed, such as to punish that offence in an effective, proportionate and dissuasive manner. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against a person in respect of unlawful conduct consisting in market manipulation for which the same person has already been finally convicted, in so far as that conviction is, given the harm caused to the company by the offence committed, such as to punish that offence in an effective, proportionate and dissuasive manner.

| 2. | The ne bis in idem principle guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union confers on individuals a right which is directly applicable in the context of a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The ne bis in idem principle guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union confers on individuals a right which is directly applicable in the context of a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.

1

---
No. 51620.

#### Protests 629973-G, etc., of Gimbel Bros., Inc., Delaware, et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United Stales*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit
31.2
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 
 I, Greg
Hildebrand, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Volterra Semiconductor
Corporation;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.
  ****Date: April 29,
2005
    By:
    /s/ Greg
  HildebrandGreg HildebrandChief
      Financial Officer
## Jul. 

## 27. 2012 "5:05PM No. 0333 P. 1

July 27, 2012 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor, Room W-12-140 1200 New**J~rsey** Ave. SE Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Engine Struts Drain Tube Assemblies· References: (A) NPRM 2012-NM-015-AD; Docket No.**FAA-2012~0591** (B) FAA AD**2008-08~24** . (C) Boeing SpecialAttention Service Bulletin (SASB) 737-54-1043 Rev 2, dated November 04, 2011 Dear Sir or Madam: ..::.J

AlaskaAirlines (ASA) has reviewed Ref (A) Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), which supersedes Ref (B) Airworthiness Directive. The proposed AD describes proceduresfor replacing the drain tube assembly ofthe engine strut aftfairing with a newone which includes an integral supportclamp made ofnickel alloy 625, per Ref(C) Boeing SASB. ASAoffers thefollowing comments: 1) Ref (A) paragraph (h) [AMOCS] (3) states: "AMOCs approved previously in accordancewith AD 2008-08-24, Amendment 39-15478 (73 FR 21242, ·April 21, 2008), are not approved as AMOCs with this AD." 2) Ref (C) section 1. [PLANNING] F. (APPROVAL] paragraph 3 states: "This service bulletin has been approved 

### by the FAA. In addition, the Manager ofthe Seattle Aircraft Certification Office approvesthe replacement ofthe drain tube assemblies and support clamps in accordancewith SB 737-54-1043 Revision 2 as an AMOC to replacement ofthe drain tube assemblies and support clamps in accordancewith SB 737-54-1043, dated May 2, 2007, as required by paragraphs 

### (f) and (h) of AD 2008-08-24. All provisions ofAD 2008-08-24 that are not specifically referenced in the preceding sentence remainfully applicable and**mus~** be complied with." ASAwould like clarification ofthe NPRM resolving the conflict between statements 1) and 2), where 1) states previously approved AMOCs are not allowed yetthe new AD would require accomplishment per SASB 737-54-1043, Rev 2which itself is an approved AMOC.

B 0 X 6 8 '1 0 0 S E A T T L E, W A 9 8 1 6 8 . 0 9 0 0 I 2 0 6 • 4 3 3 . 3 2

### o0

## Jul. 

## 27. 2012 5:05PM 

## No. 0333 P. 2.

Alaska Airlines has already accomplished several aircraft per Ref (C) 

### Boeing SASB 737-54-1043 

### Rev 2. ASA

### would like the newAD 

### to add the standar.d:paragraph 'Creditfor Previous Actions' which would "provide credit for actions performed using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-54-1043 

### Rev 2, dated November04, 2011.'' · Thankyou forthe opportunityto provide comments. 

## Ifyou have any questions or 

### need additional information, please feel free to cohtact Plamen Stoyanov at 206-392-9620. · Regards,
Joe Nolan Directorof Engineering Standards Alaska Airlines 

### P.O. Box 68900-SEAME · Seattle, WA 98168

B 0 X 6 8 9 

### o o S E A T T L E. W A 9 8 1 6 B - 0 9 0 0

### i 2 0 6 - 4 3 3 - .3 2 0 0

--------------------------
October 13,2015

No. 04-15-00570-CV

PEVETO COMPANIES, LTD. D/B/A BRAKE CHECK,

Appellant

V.

FASA FRICTION LABORATORIES, INC.,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-01-20405

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This court has determined that this dispute is appropriate for referral to an Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR) procedure. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 154.021 (West 2011). All further

communications with this court by the parties regarding ADR shall be directed to the Clerk of the Court

for any assistance in the mediation process.

All parties are ORDERED to respond in writing by October 27, 2015 stating: (I) the name and

address of the mediator of their choice; or (2) any objection to mediation and the reasons for such

objection, See id. § 154.022 (b).

Provided the parties submit to mediation, this court will issue an order suspending all appellate

deadlines for forty-five (45) days in order that the parties may concentrate on the scheduling and

completion ofthe mediation process.

Is it so ORDERED on October 13, 2015.

Marialyn/Barnard, Justice

lEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixey the seal of the ?aid court on

E. Hottle, Clerk
Exhibit
      32(ii)





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 on Form 10-QSB of Dialog Group, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
      Vincent DeCrescenzo, Sr., the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:


(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.





Dated:
      November __, 2007





/s/
                Vincent DeCrescenzoVincent
                DeCrescenzo, Sr. CFO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL : CIVIL ACTION

:

V. :

:

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS :

ET AL : NO. 02-2746

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2003, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

the following Motions are referred to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith for

resolution:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Riddle Memorial (Doc. No. 149);

2. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Paoli Memorial Hospital (Doc. No. 148); and 

3. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Crozer-Chester Medical Center 

(Doc. No. 146).

 

BY THE COURT:

 

JOHN R. PADOVA, J.

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 150 Filed 10/31/2003 Page 1 of 1
# C_2016326EN.01001201.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/12

---

Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-551/15 Portugal v Commission

(Case C-338/16 P)

(2016/C 326/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in the present proceedings;

| — | Declare that the appeal of the contested decision has been validly brought within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the appeal of the contested decision has been validly brought within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.

| — | Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Portuguese Republic considers that the decision is invalid on the following grounds:

A — First ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings against the decision of 20 July 2015

A — First ground —

First argument

First argument

Infringement of Article 263 TFEU.

Second argument

Second argument

Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of notification of the final decision on 20 July 2015.

B — Second Ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of publication of the contested decision in the Official Journal

B — Second Ground —

First argument

First argument

The wording of Article 263(6) TFEU.

Second argument

Second argument

The consistent practice of publishing such decisions and identical prior legal proceedings.

C — Third Ground — The General Court erred in law in so far as it did not favour an interpretation that did not result in lapse of the right to bring proceedings

C — Third Ground —

---
##### 



Exhibit 12-3 DETROIT EDISON SECURITIZATION FUNDING LLC
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Thousands of Dollars) Twelve Months EndedDecember 312003
    
    2002
    
    2001Earnings:Pre-tax income
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    Fixed charges
    
    
    100,480
    
    
    
    104,873
    
    
    
    86,928Earnings
    
    
    100,480
    
    
    
    104,873
    
    
    
    86,928Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    
    100,480
    
    
    
    104,873
    
    
    
    86,928Fixed charges
    
    $
    100,480
    
    
    $
    104,873
    
    
    $
    86,928Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.00
    
    
    
    1.00
    
    
    
    1.00
SERVED DECEMBER 22, 2011 

;n:PAFriME[llGF^ 

U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION- ^ ^^^'^^'•§vQ?ir{^!9^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

m\ Ol^C 2 3 A ^^ 52 

In the Matter of ) 

) Case No. 2010-GL-70-02?6 

TIFFIN AIRH. INC. ) (FAA Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

) 

Respondent ) FDMS No. FAA-201 1-1007 

) 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION 

On September 16, 2011 the Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) filed a Complainant's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted arid for Judgment on 

the Pleadings or for Hearing on Sanction Onfy. 

On December 16. 2011 a Notice of Assignment was tiled. 

On December 20, 201 1 the Respondent, Tiffin Aire, Inc (Respondent) died a 

Motion for lixtension of Time. In this Motion the Respondent noted that the FAA 

attorney had been advised of the Motion, and had no objection. 

It Is Hereby Ordered: 

1. The Respondent's Motion for Extension is granted. 

2. The Respondent's Answer to the FAA Complaint shall be filed on or before 

January 20, 2012. 

3. The Respondent's Response to the FAA's Motion to Deem Allegations 

Admitted and for Judgment on the Pleadings or for Hearing on Sanction Only 

shall be filed on or before January 20, 2012. 

ivan 

nstrative Law Judge 

Attachment; Service List 
FDMSNo.FAA-2011-1007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^3 0 

Wilbur Wright Building-^Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Bradley W. Newman, President 

Tiffin Aire Inc.. Respondent 

Seneca County Airport 

1778 West State Route 224 

Tiffin. OH 44883 

TEL: 419-447-4263 

FAX: 419-447-4042 

Kate Barber, Complainant \s Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AGL-7 

Great Lakes Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

DesPlaines. IL60018 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable J.B. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-^30. 

- 2 -
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 111 

To require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process to determine 

whether individuals claiming certain service in the Philippines during 

World War II are eligible for certain benefits despite not being on 

the Missouri List, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12, 2017 

Mr. HELLER (for himself and Ms. HIRONO) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process 

to determine whether individuals claiming certain service 

in the Philippines during World War II are eligible for 

certain benefits despite not being on the Missouri List, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Filipino Veterans 

5 Promise Act’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 111 IS

1 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN SERVICE IN PHIL2 IPPINES DURING WORLD WAR II. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense, in con4 sultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and such 

5 military historians as the Secretary of Defense considers 

6 appropriate, shall establish a process to determine whether 

7 a covered individual served as described in subsection (a) 

8 or (b) of section 107 of title 38, United States Code, for 

9 purposes of determining whether such covered individual 

10 is eligible for benefits described in such subsections. 

11 (b) COVERED INDIVIDUALS.—For purposes of this 

12 section, a covered individual is any individual who— 

13 (1) claims service described in subsection (a) or 

14 (b) of section 107 of title 38, United States Code; 

15 and 

16 (2) is not included in the Approved Revised Re17 constructed Guerilla Roster of 1948, known as the 

18 ‘‘Missouri List’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS