alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

___201 4

_______ - NM -

_____ 009

_____ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significan t? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
##### 



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 on Form 10-Q of R.H. Donnelley
Corporation (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
such officers 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 as of the dates and for the periods
expressed in the Report.

/s/ David C. Swanson

David C. Swanson
Chief Executive Officer
November 8, 2002

35
# C_2017168EN.01000501.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Gilbert Szajner, Forge de Laguiole

(Case C-598/14 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) - Article 65(1) and (2) - Word mark LAGUIOLE - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law - Application of national law by EUIPO - Role of the EU Courts))

(2017/C 168/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Gilbert Szajner (represented by: A. Sam-Simenot, avocate), Forge de Laguiole SARL (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Forge de Laguiole SARL to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Forge de Laguiole SARL to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

1

---
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 Scottish Re Group Limited (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael C. French, 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/ Michael C. French
---------------------
Michael C. French
Chief Executive Officer
November 5, 2004

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Scottish Re Group Limited and will be retained by Scottish Re
Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
S16Y1592.

#### IN THE MATTER OF HOLLY DE ROSA HOGUE (EDWARDS).

(791 SE2d 2)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition for voluntary discipline filed by Holly De Rosa Hogue (Edwards) (State Bar No. 142263), prior to the issuance of a formal complaint, see Bar *665Rules 4-227 (b) (2) and 4-110 (f). In her petition, Hogue, who became a member of the Bar in 2005, seeks to voluntarily surrender her license to practice law, and admits that she violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2) when she was convicted of distribution of oxycodone and methamphetamine — a felony The maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) is disbarment.

Decided September 12, 2016.

*Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jonathan W. Hewett, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

The State Bar filed a response, concluding that the interests of the public and the State Bar of Georgia would be best served by acceptance of Hogue’s petition for voluntary surrender of license, particularly given the nature of Hogue’s crime and the fact that she was convicted of distribution, not just possession, of oxycodone and methamphetamine. See In *the Matter of Davis,*295 Ga. 848, 849 (764 SE2d 548) (2014) (disbarment for possession of methamphetamine and making a false statement); *In the Matter of*McLarty, 269 Ga. 749, 750 (506 SE2d 850) (1998) (disbarment for trafficking in and possession of cocaine and marijuana).

Having reviewed the petition and the State Bar’s response, we accept the petition for voluntary surrender of license, which is tantamount to disbarment, Bar Rule 4-110 (f). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Holly De Rosa Hogue (Edwards) be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Hogue is reminded of her duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 10-670.

#### Sojourn Care, Inc., dba Sojourn Care of Tulsa, Petitioner v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

562 U.S. 1194, 131 S. Ct. 1016,

178 L. Ed. 2d 855,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 674.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 31.2

RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Lawrence Safarek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Niles Financial, 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;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material aspects 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) 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 changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter 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 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 function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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: August 14, 2006



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Lawrence Safarek         
|Lawrence Safarek             
|Vice President and Treasurer 
|(Principal Financial Officer)
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 Esterline
Technologies Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Form 10-K), I, R. Bradley Lawrence, 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 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: December 22, 2009



By:

/s/ R. Bradley LawrenceR. Bradley LawrencePresident and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2





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 Escalade, Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 25, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Deborah J. Meinert, 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 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/ Deborah J. MeinertDeborah J. MeinertChief Financial OfficerJune 16, 2011
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3



                         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTS ON
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Dynamics Research Corporation:

Under the date of March 26, 2003, we reported on the consolidated balance sheet
of Dynamics Research Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders'
equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years in
the two-year period ended December 31, 2002. In connection with our audits of
the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also audited the
related financial statement schedule. This financial statement schedule is the
responsibility of the company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation
to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 26, 2003
From: George Tsiolis [mailto:gtsiolis@nj.rr.com]

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 7:39 PM

To: Withey, Charlotte

Cc: 'Giff, Jennifer' Subject: FW: Arizona RHR FIP

- Tribal Consultation Between EPA, SRPMIC and PCC

Dear Charlotte,

Happy New Year to you too!

In response to your e

- mail inquiry yesterday and following up on our December

20

- 21, 2013 e

- mail discussion, attached please find Community services budget information for fiscal year 2014. The prevailing trend is that these services budgets averag e about a 3% increase annually. The requirement to install SNCR at PCC by 2018 would have a significant impact on these services budgets and presently there is no contingency to account for such an impact. As you know from my December 20 e

- mail SRPMIC

- PC C believes there is legal flexibility for the EPA to propose a FIP that requires PCC to install SNCR later than 2018 and we did not discern in your December 21 e

- mail necessarily a contrary position. Accordingly the Community respectfully requests that th e EPA in the FIP rulemaking propose that the numeric emissions limit and any other

standards reflective of the installation of SNCR at PCC not take effect earlier

than 2022

- 2023. Also please consider that a more definitive statement from the

EPA that it h as the legal flexibility to propose a compliance timeframe later than December 31, 2018 would make it more likely that the Community would feel the potential benefits of submitting additional financial information to inform the rulemaking would outweigh th e sensitivities to doing so that I described in my

December 20 e

- mail. In response to your December 21 analysis, we would suggest the EPA’s flexibility to propose a compliance timeframe later than December 31, 2018 is found at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)( B ), w hich requires the reasonable progress goals to be based also on consideration of the “uniform rate of improvement in visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to

achieve it for the period covered by the implementation plan” (my emphasis).

Alte rnatively SRPMIC

- PCC would welcome the opportunity to review any

determination that the EPA has made that achievement of a 1.8 lbs/ton NOX emissions rate at PCC by December 31, 2018 (and no later) is needed to achieve reasonable progress, relative in mater ial part to the uniform rate of improvement, as indicated by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).

Once again, SRPMIC

- PCC thanks you for the EPA’s efforts in the tribal consultation regarding the proposed FIP.

Best regards,George A. Tsiolis

Counsel to SRPMIC

- P CC

George A. Tsiolis Attorney at Law 351 Lydecker Street Englewood, New Jersey 07631

Cell: 602

- 319

- 4021

Office: 201

- 408

- 4256

Fax: 201

- 408

- 4622

Email: gtsiolis@nj.rr.com

Web: www.gtsiolis.com
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/William F. MitchellWilliam F. MitchellChief Executive Officer /s/ Duane D. DeanerDuane D. DeanerChief Financial Officer      May 24, 2007
No. 10-7481.

#### DeShawn Witcher, Petitioner v. John Prelesnik, Warden.

562 U.S. 1185, 131 S. Ct. 1009,

178 L. Ed. 2d 838,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 843.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 10-7146.

#### Roberto Gonzales Garcia, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1146, 131 S. Ct. 921,

178 L. Ed. 2d 768,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 579.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 116 4 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 075 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
Exhibit 11

                 Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings
                  (In thousands, except for per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Year Ended December 31,
                                                   -------------------------------------
                                                       1995         1996         1997
                                                   ---------   ----------    ----------
<S>                                                <C>         <C>             <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations           $ 11,357    $ (33,028)      $ 1,245
Discontinued operations                              (2,137)      (5,528)           --
                                                   --------    ---------     ---------
Net income (loss)                                   $ 9,220    $ (38,556)      $ 1,245
                                                   =========   ==========    ==========
Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding - Basic:                             9,707       10,681        11,353
     Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants      755           -- (a)       252
                                                   --------    ---------     ---------
Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding - Diluted:                          10,462       10,681        11,605
                                                   =========   ==========    ==========
Basic income (loss) per share:
     Continuing operations                           $ 1.17      $ (3.09)       $ 0.11
     Discontinued operations                          (0.22)       (0.52)           --
                                                   --------    ---------     ---------
     Basic income (loss) per share:                  $ 0.95      $ (3.61)       $ 0.11
                                                   =========   ==========    ==========
Diluted income (loss) per share:
     Continuing operations                           $ 1.09      $ (3.09)       $ 0.11
     Discontinued operations                          (0.20)       (0.52)           --
                                                   --------    ---------     ---------
     Diluted income (loss) per share:                $ 0.89      $ (3.61)       $ 0.11
                                                   =========   ==========    ==========
</TABLE>

(a)  For the year ended December 31, 1996, the assumed exercise of stock options
     and warrants has not been included in the calculation as they would be
     anti-dilutive in the loss per share.