alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alliance Bancshares California (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Curtis S. Reis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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.



/s/ Curtis S. ReisPresident and Chief Executive Officer




Date: November 15, 2004



---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alliance Bancshares California (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel L. Erickson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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.



/s/ Daniel L. EricksonExecutive Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer




Date: November 15, 2004
**EXHIBIT
32.1**





**SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**











The
undersigned officer of Summit Financial Corporation (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with this Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report), that, to such
officer’s 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, 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.











Date:
      February 22, 2005J.
      Randolph Potter, President and Chief Executive
Officer











The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Summit Financial Corporation and will be retained by Summit Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

On behalf of this Federal Agency, I certify that collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 

CFR 1320.9 and related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3). 

Title: (150 characters max)

OMB #: Docket ID#: (for office use only)

The following topics summarize the proposed information collection that certification covers. By signing below, you 

are certifying your Principal Office’s compliance. If you are unable to certify any of these provisions, please identify 

and explain the reason in number 18 of your accompanying Supporting Statement: 

 A. It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

 B. It avoids unnecessary duplication;

 C. It reduces burden on small entities;

 D. It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous language that is understandable to respondents;

 E. Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

 F. It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

 G. It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3) about:

(i) Why the information is being collected;

(ii) Use of information;

(iii) Burden estimate;

(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and

(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

 H. It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management 

and use of the information to be collected; 

 I. It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology (if applicable); 

 J. It makes appropriate use of information technology; and

 K. It reflects appropriate input from all agency offices, such as OPEPD and OGC. POs must ensure all policy 

issues are addressed prior to ICRAS submittal (i.e., any policy issues with grant applications) so the ICR is ready 

for public viewing. 

Your office must certify approval of all submitted information collection requests. Your signature authorizes 

PIRMS to post the information collection request for public comment. If this collection should not be publicly 

available, please provide reasons to PIRMS via e-mail to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov with your official ICRAS submittal. 

PIRMS does not share Information collections tied to a proposed or draft rule with the public until the publication date 

of that rule.

Digital Signature of Principal Office Official or Designee
#### Public Service Truck Renting, Inc., Plaintiff, v Ambassador Insurance Company et al., Defendants. Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, Individually and as Subrogee of Toth Trucking Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Ambassador Insurance Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Respondent, and Public Service Truck Renting, Inc., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Genatt Associates, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The general rule is that "an insurer may not be subrogated to a claim against its own insured, at least when the claim arises from an incident for which the insurer’s policy covers that insured” *(Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co.,*68 NY2d 465, 471). In that case, however, the subrogation claim was based upon an express agreement by the insured to indemnify the subrogor for the same risk *(see also, Fowler v Stillwater Assocs.,*169 AD2d 226 [decided herewith], where the insured also expressly agreed to indemnify for the same risk and this Court applied the general rule). In the subject case, the subrogation claim seeks to recover for a breach of the additional insured’s promise to provide insurance coverage, an obligation completely distinct from the obligation to indemnify *(see, Kinney v Lisk Co.,*76 NY2d 215). We conclude that the general rule has no application in this instance.

Supreme Court properly determined that the motions for summary judgment on causes of action asserted by or against Ambassador Insurance Company should be denied and that further proceedings should be stayed during the pendency of liquidation proceedings in Vermont. Although Vermont has not enacted the Uniform Insurers Liquidation Act *(see,*Insurance Law §§ 7408-7415), its statutory scheme is similar in nearly every material respect affecting reciprocity *(see, Kelly v Overseas Investors,*24 AD2d 157, 160-161, *revd on other grounds*18 NY2d 622). Thus, Vermont has enacted the Uni*633form Act "in substance and effect”, and Vermont is a "reciprocal state” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 7408 (b) (6) *(Laces Roller Corp. v Ambassador Ins. Co.,*134 AD2d 408; *see also, Murphy v Ambassador Ins. Co.,*195 NJ Super 274, 478 A2d 1243). Under the circumstances, a stay of further proceedings in this action would promote the purposes of the Uniform Act and the interests of comity by giving effect to the automatic stay imposed by the liquidation order in Vermont Superior Court. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1



RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Patrick M. Murray, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 2) of Dresser, Inc.;



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; and



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.



|Date: December 11, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/    Patrick M. Murray                 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  | Patrick M. Murray Chief Executive
Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     HONORING MARGARET JEAN LABORN

                                 ______
                                 

                  HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
proclamation.
  Whereas, twenty-nine years ago a virtuous woman of God accepted her 
calling to serve in the Government of the United States of America; and
  Whereas, Ms. Margaret Jean Laborn began her career service with two 
years in the United States Marine Corps and since 1987, has served in 
the United States Department of Commerce's Economic Development 
Administration (EDA) retiring today as an Economic Development 
Assistant; and
  Whereas, this phenomenal woman has shared her time and talents in 
both military and civilian service giving the citizens of our District 
a friend to help those in need, a fearless leader and a servant to all 
who wants to insure that the system works for everyone; and
  Whereas, Ms. Margaret Jean Laborn is a cornerstone in our community 
that has enhanced the lives of thousands for the betterment of our 
District and Nation; and
  Whereas, the U.S. Representative of the Fourth District of Georgia 
has set aside this day to honor and recognize Ms. Margaret Jean Laborn 
on her retirement and to wish her well in her new endeavors;
  Now therefore, I, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. do hereby proclaim 
July 31, 2012 as Ms. Margaret Jean Laborn Day in the 4th Congressional 
District.
  Proclaimed, this 31st day of July, 2012.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2011204EN.01000302.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-52/08) (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Notaries - Directive 2005/36/EC)

2011/C 204/05

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: represented by H. Støvlbæk and P. Andrade, Agents)

Applicant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent, and by K. Smith, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and F.S. Gaspar Rosa, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and E. Matulionytė, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc and Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the period prescribed, with regard to the profession of notary, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), which repealed Directive 89/49/EEC (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
June 3, 2015

To whom it may concern, 

I, Jeremy S Wilkins, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 

112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, be exempt from the 

Federal Aviation Regulations as specified and seek exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R §§ 

61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) 

& (b), to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA). 

This exemption request will permit Jeremy S Wilkins, as the owner and operator of Unmanned Aircraft 

System's (UAS) for the commercial purpose of conducting aerial video and photography of Real Estate, 

perform home and or business exterior inspections, agricultural inspections, and general photography. 

I as the sole operator of the named UAS vehicles, consisting of a DJI Inspire 1 UAS, and a DJI Phantom 3

UAS, and their use will be for commercial photography and video for hire, namely, Real Estate 

Photography, home and or business exterior inspections, wedding and events, increase public knowledge of 

UAS and promote safe UAS operations, land and survey appraisals, and agricultural assessments on local 

farms as needed. 

I am an experienced pilot with the above-mentioned aircraft and have over 10 years of experience in radio 

control aircraft experience. The above mentioned aircraft are GPS assisted for location based information, 

and include a “Return to Home” safety feature in case of signal loss. I will perform all pre-flight and postflight checks, and system/vehicle maintenance. All flights will be L.O.S. And will have a spotter as needed. 

All flights will maintain less than 400' A.G.L. The Inspire 1 craft weighs 6.5 pounds; the Phantom 3 weighs 

3 pounds. Both are battery operated, which are quieter as not to disrupt surrounding neighbors and 

businesses. Both aircrafts also have a safety feature in the software which will not allow it to spool up the 

motors if within a certain distance of Class A/B/C, etc.... airports. 

The use of these aircraft is financially viable as the cost to the consumer is much less than hiring a full size 

aircraft and pilot. The aircraft are also safer and can access areas a full size aircraft can't. For home 

inspections, they also allow a total roof inspection without the need of ladders and harnesses, which also 

creates a safer and less costly option to the client. 

Thank you very much for your consideration and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, 

Jeremy S Wilkins

801 Queens Park Drive

Owings Mills, MD 21117

410.858.0872

jwilkins@wilkinsphotos.com
# C_2012032EN.01001803.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — CDC Hydrogene Peroxide v Commission

(Case T-437/08) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Statement of contents of the administrative file relating to a cartel proceeding - Refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)

2012/C 32/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CDC Hydrogene Peroxide Cartel Damage Claims (CDC Hydrogene Peroxide) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by R. Wirtz, subsequently by R. Wirtz and S. Echement and finally by T. Funke, A. Kirschstein and D. Stein, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Costa de Oliveira, A. Antoniadis and O. Weber, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, P. Costa de Oliveira and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, K. Petkovska and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Evonik Degussa GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented initially by C. Steinle, and then by C. Steinle and M. Holm-Hadulla, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission decision SG.E3/MM/psi D(2008) 6658 of 8 August 2008 refusing full access to the statement of contents of the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision SG.E3/MM/psi D(2008) 6658 of the Commission of 8 August 2008 refusing full access to the statement of contents of the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision SG.E3/MM/psi D(2008) 6658 of the Commission of 8 August 2008 refusing full access to the statement of contents of the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by CDC Hydrogene Peroxide Cartel Damage Claims (CDC Hydrogene Peroxide); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by CDC Hydrogene Peroxide Cartel Damage Claims (CDC Hydrogene Peroxide);

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden and Evonik Degussa to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden and Evonik Degussa to pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
#### In the matter of the habeas corpus of Joe LONDON, Petitioner.

No. A-12566.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

*Feb.*5, 1958.

*723Joe London, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Owen J. Watts, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

This is an original petition for habeas corpus brought by Joe London, pro se, an inmate of the penitentiary, complaining of a certain judgment and sentence against him upon a conviction by a jury for rape in the second degree, for which he was sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary.

Because of the petition for habeas corpus having been filed by an inmate of the penitentiary and because of the fact the petitioner represents himself, we have given this matter more than ordinary consideration. It appears that after said conviction herein complained of, an appeal was perfected by the petitioner and an opinion rendered therein on May 2, 1956. London v. State, Okl.Cr., 297 P.2d 567. We have examined the appeal therein perfected by transcript. In addition thereto, on this petition for habeas corpus the petitioner has submitted a transcript of the testimony in the trial on the merits. This wc have also examined. In the petition herein, it appears the petitioner complains that he was not permitted to cross-examine certain witnesses who were endorsed on the information, but who apparently did not testify. He further complains of the fact that he has been deprived of certain property and in effect alleges that his conviction was a result of a conspiracy on the part of the alleged victim, Dorcas London, his niece, and her father, with whom the petitioner had a partnership arrangement in a nursery, to eliminate the petitioner from the partnership and thereby convert his interest in the nursery and to appropriate his property and money to the use and benefit of the victim’s father.

None of the matters alleged in the petition are matters that can properly be inquired into on habeas corpus. They are matters that might have been considered on appeal if properly raised. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal. In re Watson, Okl.Cr., 297 P.2d 569; In re Boyd, Okl.Cr., 302 P.2d 494; In re Goff, Okl.Cr., 312 P.2d 902. Moreover, it has been held that where the trial court had jurisdiction of the petitioner’s person, jurisdiction of the subject matter, and authority under the law to pronounce the judgment and sentence, and nothing occurred to defeat the trial court’s jurisdiction, relief will not be granted by habeas corpus. In re Watson, supra; In re Boyd, supra; In re Childers, Okl.Cr., 310 P.2d 776; In re Goff, supra; In re Duty, Okl.Cr., 318 P.2d 900.

It is clearly apparent that the petition .herein wholly fails to state grounds for relief by habeas corpus and that the record submitted in support of the petition submits only questions which may be submitted on appeal. The writ of habeas corpus is accordingly denied.

POWELL and NIX, JJ., concur.
# Roane - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Tennessee Development District Executive Director Rick Yakubic Email &#114;&#x79;&#97;&#x6b;&#117;&#x62;i&#x63;&#64;&#x65;t&#100;&#x64;&#46;&#x6f;&#114;&#x67;The post East Tennessee Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.