alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the Form 10-Q filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                                         
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Lisa F. Campbell                                    
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Lisa F. Campbell                                        
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Operating Officer
# CA2007188DE.01002501.xml

| 11.8.2007 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 188/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2007

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 188/25

---

RESERVELISTEN

   (1)

RESERVELISTEN

(1

ALLGEMEINE AUSWAHLVERFAHREN EPSO/AD/51/06

ALLGEMEINE AUSWAHLVERFAHREN

RECHTS- UND SPRACHSACHVERSTÄNDIGE (AD 7)

RECHTS- UND SPRACHSACHVERSTÄNDIGE (AD 7)

DEUTSCHER SPRACHE

DEUTSCHER SPRACHE

(2007/C 188 A/04)

Zweig: Parlament, Rat, Kommission

| Kirsten | BACHOUR (ELSNER) |
| --- | --- |
| Susanne | KNOEFEL |
| Martin | KUECHLER |
| Stefan | LECHLER |
| Karin | LENSKI (WILLEE) |
| Claudia Susan | LINDEMANN (HOPPE) |
| Nina Britt Susann | NEUMANN |

Kirsten

BACHOUR (ELSNER)

Susanne

KNOEFEL

Martin

KUECHLER

Stefan

LECHLER

Karin

LENSKI (WILLEE)

Claudia Susan

LINDEMANN (HOPPE)

Nina Britt Susann

NEUMANN

Die Reservelisten gelten bis zum 31.12.2008. Ihre Geltungsdauer kann verlängert werden.

31.12.2008

---

(1)  Auf ausdrücklichen Wunsch einer erfolgreichen Prüfungsteilnehmerin oder eines erfolgreichen Prüfungsteilnehmers wird ihr bzw. sein Name nicht veröffentlicht.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8694 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8694

To amend title 4, United States Code, to permit the flag of the United 
States to be flown at half-staff in the event of the death of the Mayor 
                      of the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2024

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 4, United States Code, to permit the flag of the United 
States to be flown at half-staff in the event of the death of the Mayor 
                      of the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. FLYING FLAG OF UNITED STATES AT HALF-STAFF IN THE EVENT OF 
              THE DEATH OF THE MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    Section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``Government and 
        the Governor of a State, territory, or possession,'' and 
        inserting ``Government, the Governor of a State, territory, or 
        possession, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia,''; and
            (2) in the eighth sentence, by striking ``or the Governor 
        of a State, territory, or possession;'' and inserting ``, the 
        Governor of a State, territory, or possession, or the Mayor of 
        the District of Columbia;''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF MARYLAND *v.*GIBSON

[No. 321,

September Term, 1968.]

*Decided June 30, 1969.*

*400The cause was argued before Hammond, C. J., and Marbury, Barnes, Finan and Smith, JJ.

*L. Robert Evans, Deputy State’s Attorney for Baltimore County,*with whom were *Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, Robert A. DiCicco, Assistant Attorney General,*and *Samuel A. Green, Jr., State’s Attorney for Baltimore County,*on the brief, for appellant.

*Donald J. Gilmore,*with whom was *Richard D. Byrd*on the brief, for appellee.

Hammond, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The State indicted Michael Dana Gibson in five counts for causing the death of Diana Grempler by the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle. The State’s attorney for Baltimore County seemingly feared he could not prove gross negligence for in the first four counts he sought to charge involuntary manslaughter by automobile solely by reason of a violation of law without alleging gross negligence. The first count charged that the death resulted from Gibson’s failure to stop in obedience to a stop sign, the second that it resulted from his reckless ' driving, the third as a result of his driving under the influence of alcohol, and the fourth as a direct result of Gibson’s possession, he being under twenty-one, of an alcoholic beverage on a public highway. Each count concluded with the words “(Common Law — Misdemeanor *401Manslaughter)The fifth count was brought under Code (1967 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 388, for that Gibson, while operating an automobile unlawfully “in a grossly negligent” manner, did kill Miss Grempler.

Judge Menchine, in granting a motion to dismiss the first four counts, rejected the State’s contention that if an unlawful act, regardless of its nature or character, causes death, the perpetrator is guilty of involuntary manslaughter and held that none of those counts legally charged a crime. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed on the ground that the legislature in enacting Ch. 414 of the Laws of 1941, Code (1967 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 388, entitled “Manslaughter by Automobile * * intended to encompass the entire field of unintentional criminal homicides resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle so that the common law crime of involuntary manslaughter (whatever are its scope and limits) when based on occurrences of that type is controlled and governed exclusively by the statute. Since the matter was of public importance in the administration of the criminal law, we granted certiorari.

We have carefully reviewed and considered the record and the law and have concluded that the result reached by the Court of Special Appeals was correct for the reasons given in the careful and thorough opinion of Chief Judge Murphy of the Court, in *State v. Gibson, 4*Md. App. 236, which we approve.

*Judgment affirmed, costs to be paid by Baltimore County.*
(Reap. Dec. 8501)

#### H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 22708, etc.

(Decided December 2, 1955)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*Warren B. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issues in the Appeals to Reappraisement listed in the Schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues decided in the case of *United States*v. *Nelson Bead Co.,*C. A. D. 590, and that the record in said case be incorporated and made a part of the record herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated herein, less the additions made by the importer on entry becauste of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value of the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case: 2:10-cv-00112-MHW-MRA Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/21/11 Page: 1 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00112-MHW-MRA Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/21/11 Page: 2 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00112-MHW-MRA Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/21/11 Page: 3 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00112-MHW-MRA Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/21/11 Page: 4 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00112-MHW-MRA Doc #: 20 Filed: 09/21/11 Page: 5 of 5  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-07T16:08:57-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
(Reap. Dec. 8766)

#### Holland Import Company of Houston *v.*United States United States *v.*Holland Import Company of Houston

Entry Nos. 273-H; 847-H; 1518-H.

(Decided March 21, 1957)

Importer not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the United States.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These three appeals for reappraisement, involving shipments of hardboard from Rotterdam, Holland, that were entered at the port of Houston, Tex., have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value or price at the time of the exportation of the merchandise involved herein, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and covers of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, is as follows:

> All items, Holland Florins 121.68 per hundred square meters, net, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher export value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

On the agreed facts, I hold that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value for all the items is Holland Florins 121.68 per hundred square meters, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
|   | (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 the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                | Summit Hotel Properties, Inc.                                          |
|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                                                   |
| Date: April 4, 2011 | By:      /s/  Stuart J. Becker |
|                | Stuart J. Becker                                                       |
|                | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer              |
|                | (Principal Financial Officer)                                          |
Prepared for: Federal Aviation Administration 

Docket Management Facility US Department of Transportation

Prepared by: Jerry Bruce /Caesars Entertainment Services 

PO Box 60332, Boulder City, NV. 89006

March 11, 2015

Contents 

Petition for Exemption Letter 

FAA UAS Civil COA Request 

Location of proposed operation with VFR Chart 

FAA N number Registration N6789X 

Proof of Ownership 

Petition for Exemption under section 333 of the FAA reform Act and Part 11 of

Aviation Regulations.
 I, Jerry Bruce, an employee of Caesars Entertainment Services and holder of a 

Commercial Pilot Certificate hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation 

Regulation (FARs) to allow me to operate a small unmanned UAS (unmanned aerial system) 

 The area of designated flight is the Cascata Golf Course located in Boulder City NV. The 

golf course is considered private property but is open to the public. Location is approximately 

1.5 miles northwest of the city. 

Our intention is to film the golf course for advertisement purposes and put the video on our 

company website. The flights will be initiated from all 18 tee boxes and flown to all 

respective greens detailing yardages, hazards and obstacles. Altitude will be from the 

surface to 100ft. 

 Utilizing the UAV as opposed to a manned helicopter will greatly improve safety and costs 

due to the shear size and capability of the UAV which weighs approximately 4 pounds. A 

helicopters weight and rotor wash at low altitude will adversely effect video quality. 

 The UAV in use will be a Turbo Ace Matrix with GPS, NAZA VM2 flight control system

a three axis gimball with a GoPro 3+ camera mounted on the nose and a Futaba 14sg Long 

Range radio transmitter coupled with a R7008SB 2 way receiver and telemetry voltage 

sensor. The system includes a “fail safe” and “Go Home” feature in the event of loss of 

signal. It is powered by 1, 8000mah Lithium-Polymer (LiPo) battery along with 1, 2200mah 

Lithium-Polymer battery for the camera gimbal.It is constructed of a carbon fiber body and 

square aluminum tubular arms with four TA-Mat 13 balanced brushless motors. Flight time is 

approximately 26 minutes. The UAV weighs approximately 4 pounds.

All flights will be performed during DAYLIGHT operation only. There will be NO players or 

spectators at the time of flights for SAFETY concerns. The only buildings on the property are 

the golf pro shop and restaurant (one building) there are no homes or other structures on the 

course. 

Obtaining an exemption for this project will mean potential increase in our business allowing 

our current and future guests to view the course before and or after they play it.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.! 

Sincerely 

Jerry Bruce

PO Box 60332

Boulder City , NV. 89006 < jbruce081@gmail.com> 702-499-3904
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 16868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5741]


Announcement of Meetings of the International Telecommunication 
Advisory Committee

SUMMARY: This notice announces meetings of the International 
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) to prepare advice on U.S. 
positions for two sets of meetings: the meeting of the Organization for 
Economic Co-operation and Development Working Parties on the 
Information Economy (WPIE) and on Communications and Infrastructure 
Services Policy (CISP), and a meeting of the International 
Telecommunication Union's Study Group 9 (Integrated broadband cable 
networks and television and sound transmission).
    The ITAC will meet on May 3, 10, and 17 from 2-4 p.m. EDT in room 
2533a of the Harry S Truman building (Main State), 2201 C Street, 
Washington, DC to prepare advice for the next meetings of the WPIE and 
CISP.
    The ITAC will meet by conference call at 2 p.m. EDT to prepare 
advice on proposed USA contributions to ITU-T Study Group 9. Call-in 
information is available from the secretariat at 202 647-3234.
    These meetings are open to the public. Admission to the Department 
of State, 2201 C Street, Washington, DC requires prior notification to 
the secretariat (including birth date and an identification number such 
as driver license or passport) and presentation of a government-issued 
picture identification card at the entrance. Further information may be 
obtained from the Secretariat at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b0602050a190f010e2b181f0a1f0e450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="771a1e191605131d1237040316031259101801">[email protected]</span></a>, telephone 202 647-
3234.

    Dated: March 26, 2007.
Doreen McGirr,
Director of Telecommunication Development, EEB/CIP/Multilateral 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-6293 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case No. 7,990.

#### LAIRD v. DICK et al.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 666.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1835.

Letters Testamentary — Revocation.

Letters testamentary granted without security, agreeably with the will of the testator, may be revoked by the orphans’ court, upon the petition of creditors.

[Bill by John Laird’s executor against Elizabeth Dick and others.]

This was an appeal from an order of the orphans’ court mad.e on the 25th of August, 1835, revoking the letters testamentary because the executor had not complied with an order of that court requiring him to give security and return an inventory; the letters having been originally granted on the 30th of July, 1S33, accompanied by an order saying that “no security to the executor’s bond is required, nor any inventory of the personal estate to be returned to the court.” The order of revocation was made on the petition of the creditors of the testator. The letters were originally granted without security in consequence of a clause in the will, by which the testator requests that no security should be required of his executor, at least as far as any gift or bequest was concerned; and that an appraisement should be dispensed with. The executor was not the residuary legatee.

1

 [Reported by Hon. ,, illiam Cranch, Chief J udge.]

THIS COURT,

upon consideration of the testamentary law of 1798, c. 101; Id. sube. 3, §§ 3, 8; Id. sube. 10, § 9; Id. sube. 14, §§ G, 7, affirmed the order of the orphans’ court revoking the letters testamentary.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6985

JOHN R. TAYLOR, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT W. SMITH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-02-168-5-HO)

Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John R. Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John R. Taylor, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000), as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, ,

123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32





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 Ableauctions.com, Inc. Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Abdul Ladha, Chief Executive Officer, President 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, 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, as amended, 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 September 25, 2009






/s/ Abdul Ladha


Abdul Ladha


Chief Executive Officer, President & Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)