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

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF MAX CAPITAL GROUP LTD.**

This certification isprovided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 of Max Capital Group Ltd. (the“Issuer”). 

I, W. Marston Becker, the Chief Executive Officer of Issuer certify that: 

(i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m(a) or 78o(d)); and 

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Issuer. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuer and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

Dated: July 31, 2007
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 CarePayment Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Craig J. Froude, President Consumer Services 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 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: August 13, 2012 | 
|--------------------- | 
|                      | 
|/s/ Craig J. Froude   | 
|Craig J. Froude       | 
|President             |
#### HELLS ANGELS MOTORCYCLE CLUB OF NEVADA; Sohn Regas; D.J. Myers; Donnie Atchinson; David Burgess; Rudy Villasenor; Jason Vanmeter; Christopher Guido; Tracy Lee Curtis; Mike Bouza; Troy Regas; Dale Brown; Michelle Bruce, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. State of NEVADA; City of Reno, City of Sparks; County of Washoe; Jeff Griffin; Jerry Hoover; Tony Armstrong; John Dotson; Richard Kirkland; Michael Hood; Matt Dellavella; Brent Teasley; David Depaoli; Ron Rosa; Sam Neuharth; Lanny Marsh; Lessman, Officer; R. Nuttall; Stuart Hendte; D.J. Kuzemchak; Todd Shipley; Kim Bradshaw; C. Palmer; S. Smith; Broome, Officer; T. Robinson; Dimino, Officer; Green, Officer; J. Fray; Van Diese, Officer; Tom Green; James Lopez; Stuart Handte; Patrick McGill; United States Department of Probation and Parole; Sierra Pacific Power Company; Unknown Agents, Unknown Agents of the United States Department of Justice, Defendants—Appellees.

*847No. 01-16673.

D.C. No. CV-99-00525-PMP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 17, 2003.

Decided Feb. 7, 2003.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

This is a suit by the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club under Section 1983. The only remaining defendant is the Sierra Pacific Power Company and the district court dismissed on the pleadings. Hells Angels appeals. The district court dismissal of the action was correct because there has been no sufficient allegation of a state actor as a defendant. *See Brunette v. Humane Soc’y of Ventura County,*294 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Offices
 Principal Office
 Other Offices
 Registered Office and Registered Agent
 Stock and the Transfer Thereof
 Stock Certificates
  a.
    
    The Corporation is organized under the laws of the State of Florida;b.
    
    The name of the person to whom issued;c.
    
    The number, class, and series (if any) of shares which such certificate represents;
and
 EXHIBIT B




---



##### 



d.
    
    The par value of each share or that the share has no par value, as the case may be.
 Consideration for Shares
 Lost or Destroyed Certificates
 Transfer Procedures
 Shareholders of Record
 2




---



##### 



Shareholders and Shareholders Meetings
 Annual Meetings
 Special Meetings
 Notice of Meetings
 Notice
 Closing of Transfer Books and Fixing Record Date
 3




---



##### 



Voting Record
 4




---



##### 



Quorum
 Proxies
 Voting of Shares
 Voting of Shares by Certain Holders
   5




---



##### 



Chairman
 Oral Vote
 Directors
 General Powers
 Number, Tenure and Qualifications
 6




---



##### 



Resignations
 Vacancies
 Annual Meetings
 Special Meetings
 Notice
 7




---



##### 



Telephone Meetings
 Quorum
 Compensation
 Presumption of Assent
 8




---



##### 



Executive Committee
 Chairman of the Board
 Vice Chairman of the Board
 Bank Accounts
 9




---



##### 



Dividends
 Sale, Mortgage or Lease of Assets
 Usual and Regular Course
 Not in Usual and Regular Course ,
 10




---



##### 



a.
    
    The Board of Directors shall adopt a resolution recommending the sale,
lease, exchange or other disposition and directing the submission thereof to a vote
at a meeting of Shareholders, which may be either an annual or a special meeting.b.
    
    Not less than twenty (20) days before such meeting, written notice
shall be given to each Shareholder of record, whether or not entitled to vote at
such meeting, in the manner provided in these By-Laws for the giving of notice
of meetings of Shareholders. Whether the meeting is an annual or a special
meeting, said notice shall state that the purpose or one of the purposes of said
meeting is to consider the proposed sale, lease, exchange or other disposition.c.
    
    At such meeting the Shareholders may authorize the sale, lease,
exchange, or other disposition and may fix, or authorize the Board of Directors to
fix, any or all of the terms and conditions thereof and the consideration to be
received by the Corporation therefor. Such authorization shall require the
affirmative vote of a majority of all shares of the Corporation entitled to vote
thereon.d.
    
    After such authorization by a vote of Shareholders, the Board of
Directors may nevertheless, in its discretion, abandon the sale, lease, exchange,
or other disposition of assets, subject to the rights of third parties under any
contracts relating thereto without further action or approval by Shareholders.
 Officers and Agents
 Officers
 11




---



##### 



Removal of Officers
 President
 Vice President
 Secretary
 12




---



##### 



Treasurer
 Miscellaneous
 Fiscal Year
 13




---



##### 



Waiver and Effective Date of Notice
 Amendment of By-laws
 Conflict
 14
#### Edward Joseph LUCAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-7683.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.

Decided Jan. 27, 2003.

Edward Joseph Lucas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the ATtorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Edward Joseph Lucas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Lucas has not met this standard. *See Lucas v. Conroy,*No. CA-02-388-AMD (D.Md. Oct. 22, 2002). 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.*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6176** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. EDWARD MOORE, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:01

- cr - 00007

- BO

- 2 ; 5:12

- cv - 00416

- BO )

Submitted : June 16, 2014 Decided: July 9, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Edward Moore, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Edward Moore, Jr. , seeks to appeal the district court’s order d ismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDa niel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motio n states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently revie wed the record and conclude that Moore 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23.1
 CONSENT OF HASKELL & WHITE LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Page 1 of 1

USEPA 

Public Input on the Draft Document

“Technologies for Legionella Control:

Scientific Literature Review”

Meeting Location 

U.S. EPA Potomac Yard South Building

1st Floor Conference Center located at One Potomac Yard

2777 S. Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202

Meeting Date and Time

November 9, 2015 (1:00 - 5:30 pm)

FINAL AGENDA

Overview of Meeting Agenda and Ground Rules 1:00 – 1:05

Frank Letkiewicz, Cadmus (Facilitator)

Welcome and Introductory Remarks 1:05 – 1:15

Peter Grevatt, EPA OGWDW

Overview of Legionella Draft Document 1:15 – 1:45

César Cordero, EPA OGWDW

Clarification Questions 1:45 – 1:55

FIFRA Overview 1:55 – 2:05

Dominic Schuler, EPA OPP

Clarification Questions 2:05 – 2:15

Public Input Session, Part 1 (Pre-Registered Commenters) 2:15 – 3:00

Break 3:00 – 3:15

Public Input Session, Part 2 (Other Commenters) 3:15 – 5:25

Closing Remarks and Next Steps 5:25 - 5:30

EPA OGWDW
H. R. 4921 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To require the Surface Transportation Board to implement certain recommendations 

of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘STB Information Security 

Improvement Act’’. 

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Surface Transportation Board (in this 

section referred to as the ‘‘STB’’) shall develop a timeline and 

plan to implement the recommendations of the Inspector General 

of the Department of Transportation in Report No. FI2018002, 

including improvements— 

(1) to identify controls, including risk management, weakness remediation, and security authorization; 

(2) to protect controls, including configuration management, 

user identity and access management, and security training; 

(3) to detect controls, including continuous monitoring; 

(4) to respond controls, including incident handling and 

reporting; 

(5) to recover controls for contingency planning; and 

(6) any additional tools that will improve the implementation of the recommendations. 

(b) IMPLEMENTATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the STB shall submit the plan and 

timeline developed under subsection (a) to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce of the Senate. 

(2) REPORT.—The STB shall report annually to such 

Committees on the progress on implementation of the recommendations until the implementation is complete. 

(3) PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.—The STB shall designate an 

individual to implement the plan developed under subsection 

(a). 
H. R. 4921—2 

SEC. 3. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED. 

No additional funds are authorized to carry out the requirements of this Act. Such requirements shall be carried out using 

amounts otherwise authorized. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3600-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-3600-EM), dated September 27, 2023, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued November 22, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the emergency assistance being provided under this emergency declaration is extended for an additional 45 days.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-00231 Filed 1-8-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION  BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         I, Theresa D. Becks, the Chief Financial Officer of Campbell & Company,
Inc. as general partner, of Campbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P., certify
that (i) the Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2003 of Campbell Strategic
Allocation Fund, L.P. 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 the Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Campbell
Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P.

                                  CAMPBELL STRATEGIC ALLOCATION FUND, L.P.
                                  By: Campbell & Company, Inc., general partner

                                  By: /s/ Theresa D. Becks
                                  -------------------------------
                                  Theresa D. Becks
                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                  March 24, 2004

                                      E 5
#### James C. SATCHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., And Its Wholly Owned Subsidiaries, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., and Honda R & D Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 91-7138.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 28, 1993.

*57Linda J. Hamilton Mowles, Lewis, King, Krieg & Waldrop, Knoxville, TN, Tere R. Steel, Ronald G. Peresich, Page, Mannino & Peresieh, Biloxi, MS, for defendants-appellants.

Ray Ferrero, Jr., Joanne Fanizza, Ferre-roo & Middlebrooks, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Satcher.

Wilton L. Strickland, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Peter K. Smith, Quitman, MS, Robert E. Areeneaux, Mack E. Barham, Lee A. Archer, Barham & Markle, New Orleans, LA, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JOLLY and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges, and PARKER *, District Judge.

*

 Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING & SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

The original opinion in this matter was issued by the panel on January 25, 1993. A petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing *en banc*are currently pending before the court. The petition for *en banc*rehearing is DENIED, no judge in active service having requested that the court be polled. The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. In view of recent developments in the law governing products liability in Mississippi, we now VACATE our original opinion and REMAND the case to the district court for further consideration in the light of these developments.

On March 5, 1993, the Mississippi state legislature enacted House Bill 1270, codifying various elements of Mississippi common law regarding products liability. On March 25, 1993, the Mississippi Supreme Court issued its opinion in *Sperry-New Holland v. Prestage,*617 So.2d 248 (Miss.1993) holding that, contrary to prior Fifth Circuit opinions and this panel’s opinion in the instant case, Mississippi applies a “risk-utility” analysis in products liability cases and has done so since 1987. These events, occurring subsequent to the panel opinion in this case but while petitions for rehearing were pending before the court, have the potential to alter drastically Mississippi’s products liability law.

The appellants argue, in response to the petition for rehearing, that *Sperry-New Holland*should not be applied to this case because doing so would result in manifest injustice to the parties, that the risk-utility standard does not preclude summary judgment in this case, and that House Bill 1270 codifies Mississippi law as it existed *pre-Sperry-New Holland*and changes procedures relative to punitive damage awards. The district court, with its extensive knowledge of the facts and proceedings in this ease, is in a far better position than are we to address and to first apply these new arguments, and to apply the *58newly developed law to the facts of this case. Thus, we vacate our original opinion and remand this case to the district court for further consideration.

Petition for panel rehearing GRANTED; opinion VACATED; and case REMANDED.
ANDREW EDGECOMBE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1165

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 15, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

Andrew Edgecombe, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s response to the Court’s order dated March 

23, 2017, and having determined the appeal is untimely, the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice to appellant filing a petition for 

belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c). 

ROWE, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.