alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of our report dated March 30, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2006, into the Company’s Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-136864, 333-52876, 333-55941, and 333-55933). 

/s/ Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP 

San Francisco, California 

March 30, 2007
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
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 Capital Gold Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gifford
A. Dieterle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                              /s/ Gifford A. Dieterle
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Gifford A. Dieterle
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              November 11, 2004


                                       1
March 23, 2015

Mr. Josh Cremer

Owner

Josh Cremer Photo & Video

1317 West Eastman Street

Boise, ID 83702

Dear Mr. Cremer:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your December 31, 2014 exemption request on behalf of the Josh Cremer Photo 

& Video into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0003), but we are unable to process your 

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000729976
<NAME>                        ENCIBAR, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3,046
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        74,482
<OTHER-SE>                      (77,528)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (780)
<INCOME-TAX>                    100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (880)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.01)


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1791 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 South 

United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, 

Sr., United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2011 

Mr. ROONEY (for himself, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. MILLER of Florida, 

Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. NUGENT, Mr. WEBSTER, 

Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. POSEY, Ms. 

ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. DEUTCH, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. DIAZBALART, Mr. WEST, and Mr. RIVERA) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States 

Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse under construction at 

5 101 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1791 IH

1 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, 

2 Sr., United States Courthouse’’. 

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

4 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

6 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

7 to be a reference to the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United 

8 States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00306-CR

Cameron Bernard Bennett

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1282550D)

September 12, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
* Judge King did not participate in consideration of this

case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d)(1994).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7627

DIMIDROFF HALEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN FANELLO,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-99-450, CR-92-20)

Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING,* Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dimidroff Haley, Appellant Pro Se. John Kirk Brandfass, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia; Kate L.

Mershimer, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dimidroff Haley appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Haley v. Fanello, Nos. CA-99-450; CR-92-20 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 10,

1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
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 Quarterly Report of Green Dolphin Systems Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Nicolas Plessas, 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, to the best of our
knowledge, 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/ Nicolas Plessas
                                                 -----------------------
                                                 Nicolas Plessas
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2009

p0120 

# Order

January 27, 2009

137313

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137313 COA: 272945 Bay CC: 05-003753-AV THOMAS ROBERT KOZAK, and THOMAS SYLVESTER KOZAK, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
In The Matter Of: 

NORTHEASTERN 

SERVED: April 12, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0206 

A VIA TI ON CORPORATION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 201lEAl10045 

Respondent 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING . 

On March 23, 2016, an Order Setting Filing Deadline was filed~ Among other things, this 

Order set an April 8, 2016 deadline for the parties to file settlement documents, or in the 

alternative, to file a Status Report. 

On March 25, 2016, a Notice of Hearing Location was filed, which provided the full 

address and other details of the hearing location. 

On April 8, 2016, the FAA contacted the Office of Hearings ("OH") attorney staff by 

telephone to request an extension of time to file settlement documents. Later that same day, the 

· OH attorney staff notified the parties by e-mail that the deadline to file settlement documents or a 

Status Report was extended to April 14, 2016. 

On April 12, 2016, the FAA filed the Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint, stating 

"pursuant to a settlement agreement, [the FAA] withdraws its Complaint in this matter." 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Hearing set for June 14- 16, 2016, at the Jacob K Javits Federal Building in New 

York, New York, is cancelled. 

2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this 

proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 2of2 
Docket No. FAA-2015-0206 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY . 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Ms. Camille J. Castillo 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Northeast Team 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3278 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. Edward J. Longosz, II 

Ms. Evelyn D. Sahr 

Respondent's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Eckert, Seamans, Cherin, & Mellot, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

TEL: 202-659-6619 I 202-659-6622 

FAX: 202-659-6699 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Room El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

1 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--430.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 135)**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Eschelon Telecom, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as amended,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Richard A.Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that tohis knowledge:

 

(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 represents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Sign:                                  | /S/ | Richard A. Smith |   |
|----------------------------------------|-----|------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Smith                       |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |
| June 29, 2004                          |

 

----
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 177 

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. THORNBERRY (for himself, Mr. ISSA, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. BACHUS, 

Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. OLSON, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. HALL, Mr. 

FLEMING, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. SMITH of Texas, and Mr. CULBERSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes. 

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 ‘‘Death Tax Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 (relating to estate, gift, and genera9 tion-skipping taxes) is hereby repealed. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 177 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub2 section (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying, gifts 

3 made, and generation-skipping transfers made after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEN TAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

July 22, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with Allison Transmission

FROM: Cleophas Jackson

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents meetings held on October 6, 2010 and November 18, 2010

between Allison Transmission and EPA a nd included the following individuals:

Allison Transmission: Laurie Tuttle, Tony Green, Melissa Sauer, Kevin Rodgers, and John Haley

EPA: Cleophas Jackson, Allen Duncan, James Sanchez, Ryan Szpara, Chien Sze, Peter Smith, William Courtois, James Smith, and Carl Ryan.

The discussion focused primarily on Allison’s feedback on powerpack testing versus powertrain testing versus whole vehicle chassis testi ng and recommendations for testing with their conventional / hybrid transmission(s). EPA provided an update on HILS GTR.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 4 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. BYRON LEE KING,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-4079 (D.C. No. 01-CV-78-J) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , Chief Circuit Judge, HOLLOWAY and McKAY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore subm itted without oral argument. This is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 prisoner appeal. Mr. Ki ng pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of-2-

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Mr. King was sentenced to t he statutory minimum of 120 months of imprisonment. Mr. King did not appeal. In his § 2255 motion, Mr. King requested that the c ourt vacate his sentence based on claims that (1) the indictment failed to s tate the type of methamphetamine (injectable versus non-injectable), (2) his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum, and (3) the court lacked jur isdiction to sentence him. The district court found no merit in Mr. King’s substan tive arguments, but did discover an error in his sentence. The district co urt granted the § 2255 motion and ordered Mr. King’s sentence to be reduced to 96 months; it denied the remainder of the motion. Finding no merit in any o f Mr. King’s arguments, the district court declined to grant him a certificate of appealability. Petitioner then applied to this court for a certificate of appealab ility. In order for this court to grant a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a cons titutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To do so, Petitioner must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) th e petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues p resented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v . McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotations omitted). We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the districtcourt’s disposition, and-3-

the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the re cord on appeal, or the briefs raises an issue which meets our standards for the g rant of a certificate of appealability. We conclude that for substantially the same reasons as set forth by the district court in its Orders of April 30 and Ju ly 31, 2002, we cannot say “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for th at matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different m anner.” Id. We DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
Exhibit 32

  Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer under 18
  U.S.C. 1350

   I, Henry C. Pao, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of
Supertex, Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"), certify pursuant to
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that to my
knowledge:

  (i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ending March
31, 2004 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



Date: June 16, 2004                                 /s/ Henry C. Pao
                                                    -------------------------
                                                    Henry C. Pao, Ph.D. Chief
                                                    Executive Officer and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer




The material contained in this Exhibit 32 is not deemed "filed" with the SEC
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made
before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned have executed this certification in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005. The undersigned hereby
certify that to our knowledge:

(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:  March 30, 2006             /s/ Raul S. McQuivey
                                   -------------------------
                                   Raul S. McQuivey
                                   President and Chief Executive Officer
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)




Dated:  March 30, 2006             /s/ Sidney C. Hooper
                                   -------------------------
                                   Sidney C. Hooper
                                   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                   (Principal Accounting Officer)
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*JERMAINE PRINCE

(14697)

Foti, Heiman and Schaller, Js.

Argued February 29

decision released March 26, 1996

*Leonard M. Crone,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Paul J. Ferencek,*assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *Frank S. Maco,*state’s attorney, and *Andrew M. Wittstein,*supervisory assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.