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

Dover Motorsports, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dover Motorsports, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Denis McGlynn, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 15, 2011



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Denis McGlynn                              
|Denis McGlynn                                  
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or incorporated by reference in
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such a 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



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of EGL, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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:

May 10, 2007

By:

/s/ James R. Crane



James R. Crane

Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)





Date:

May 10, 2007

By:

/s/ Michael D. Slaughter



Michael D. Slaughter

Chief Accounting Officer

(principal financial officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EGL, Inc. and will be retained by EGL, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Charles Finkbeiner, Appellant, *v.*Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

*Appeals*— Assignments *of error*— Rule *of Superior Court*— Rules *26 and, 86.*

An assignment of error relating to the admission or rejection of evidence will not be considered, which does not quote verbatim the question or offer, the objection thereto, the ruling of the Court thereon, and the evidence admitted, rejected or stricken out, or which the Court refused to strike out, in accordance with Buie 26 of the Buies of the Superior Court.

An assignment of error will not be sustained which violates the provisions of Buie 36 of the rules of the Superior Court, requiring that where the matter assigned as error is over a page long, it must be enclosed in brackets in the Becord, so as to show the points of starting and ending, with the number of the ¡assignment placed on the margin opposite the first bracket.

A point which does not limit the jury to the consideration of the evidence is bad in form, and should be refused without qualification.

Argued October 14, 1925.

Appeal No. 130, October T., 1925, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. No. 3, Philadelphia. County, June T., 1923, No. 11124, in the case of Charles Finkbeiner v. Philadelphia Sapid *365Transit Company, a corporation.

October 29, 1925:

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.

Before McMichael, P. J.

Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $700.00, and judgment thereon. Plaintiff appealed.

*Errors assigned*were various rulings on evidence, and the charge of the court.

*Samuel L.*Borton, of *Sohembs & Borton,*for appellant.

*Layton M. Schoch,*for appellee.

Per CtrRiAM,

The first and second specifications of error violate Pules 26 and 36 of this court and cannot be regarded. The third specification of error refers to the refusal of the second point submitted by the plaintiff for charge, the material part of which point was as follows : “If the jury believe that the future earning capacity of the plaintiff was diminished, &e.” and contained no suggestion that the finding of the jury must be based on the evidence. The point was bad in form as not limiting the jury to the consideration of the evidence. If this instruction had been given as requested it would have been misleading, because the jury might form such a belief without any evidence on which to found it. The point was properly refused: Commonwealth v. Nazarko, 224 Pa. 204; Dinch v. Workman, 75 Pa. Superior Ct. 101.

The judgment is affirmed.
- Skip to Primary Navigation
      - Skip to Main Content
      - Skip to Footer

          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   

        -  Water & Power            - Dams
          - Powerplants
          - Projects
          - Agrimet/Hydromet
          - Water Operations 
        -  Resources & Research            - Programs
          - Technical Service Center
          - Research & Development
          - Reclamation Manual
          - Reclamation Information Sharing Environment (RISE)
          - Environmental Resources/Reports
          - Library 
        -  About Us            - Mission
          - Fact Sheet
          - Commissioner
          - Addresses/Contacts
          - Organizational Chart
          - Leadership Bios
          - Employment
          - Contact 
        -  Recreation & Public Use            - Find Recreation
          - Recreation.gov
          - Public Use 
        -  News & Multimedia            - News Releases
          - News Stories
          - Speeches
          - Congressional Testimony
          - Fact Sheets
          - Photos
          - Multimedia
          - Social Media 

# WaterSMART Grants

Desalination

            - Reclamation
            - WaterSMART
            - Desalination
            - Contacts

WaterSMART              - WaterSMART
              - Water and Energy Efficiency Grants
              - Water Strategy Grants
              - Project Design Grants
              - Small-Scale Water Efficiency Projects
              - Environmental Water Resources Projects
              - Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program
              - Water Recycling and Desalination
              - Large-Scale Water Recycling Program
              - Desalination Construction                  - Eligible Projects
                - Previous Grant Selections
                - Previous Funding Opportunities
                - Contacts 
              - Basin Studies
              - Baseline Assessments and Pilots
              - Reservoir Operation Pilots
              - Applied Science Grants
              - Cooperative Watershed Management Program
              - Drought Program
              - Water Conservation Field Services Program

## Contacts

For additional information on Desalination, please contact Maribeth Menendez at 303-445-2094 or send an email to mmenendez@usbr.gov.

If you would like to receive email of Desalination, please send an email to watersmart@usbr.gov with your name and email. Please put Desalination in the subject line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Last Updated: 10/6/23*

## More Information about the Bureau of Reclamation

## Stay in Touch

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

            - Contact Us
            - Site Index
            - Accessibility
            - Disclaimer
            - DOI
            - FOIA
            - No Fear Act
            - Notices
            - Privacy Policy
            - Quality of Information
            - USA.gov
            - Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
#### Tebo *v.*City of Brooklyn.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Municipal Corporation—City Limits.

Land under Gowanus bay, within the county of Kings, and abutting on the city Of Brooklyn, the successor to the town of Brooklyn, is within the city of Brooklyn.

*750Appeal from special term, Kings county.

Action by William M. Tebo to restrain the city of Brooklyn from selling plaintiff’s land in Gowanus bay for taxes, and to compel the cancellation of the tax. Plaintiff contended that the land, on which was a pier, was not within the city, of Brooklyn, because below low-water mark. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Argued'before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Almet F. Jenks, (Richard B. Greenwood, Jr.,*of counsel,)'for appellant. *Josiah T. Marean,*for respondent.

Pratt, J.

Respondent concedes that the lands under water in Gowanus bay form a part of the county of Kings, but claims that those lands fal! within no town. To quote from respondent’s printed argument: “The county of Kings includes such land under water, the line running from Red Hook point to the west, along the southern boundary of Hew York county, to the center of the main channel to the ocean, but the lands under water fall within no town.” The idea that land may be within a county, and yet fall within no town, is so peculiar that clear evidence would be required to satisfy us that such has been the legislative intent. We do not find such evidence. On the contrary, section 1 of the charter of 1854 seems to assume that the city of Brooklyn is bounded by the bay of Hew York, clearly implying that Gowanus bay is included within the limits of Brooklyn. The description of the Twelfth, Twenty-Second, and Eighth wards of Brooklyn, as found in' the charter of 1868, seems to assume that Gowanus bay is a part of Brooklyn. Respondent argues that a municipal corporation is not, like a town, a territorial subdivision of a state, for which reason its jurisdiction cannot exist unless clearly given. But Brooklyn was originally a town, and of that town the city is the successor. It follows that the tax was properly levied. The judgment appealed from must be reversed, and, as no benefit can result from a new trial, final judgment should be directed for the defendant, with costs of the special term appeal.
#### LEIGHTON MACH. CO., Appellant, v. CORNELL et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

October 2, 1896.)

Action by the Leighton Machine Company against David C. Cornell and others.

No opinion. Or4er affirmed, with $10 costs. All concur.
# C_2021099EN.01000501.xml

| 23.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/5

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/483, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/480 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma

(2021/C 99/04)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/483 (2) and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/480 (4) concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma.

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of designated persons, has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma. The grounds for the listing of the persons concerned appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Myanmar/Burma, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4b of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned lists should be reconsidered, before 1 November 2021, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council's periodic review, in accordance with Article 12 of Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Article 4i(4) of Regulation (EU) No 401/2013.

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75.

(2)  OJ L 99 I, 22.3.2021, p. 40

(3)  OJ L 121, 3.5.2013, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 99 I, 22.3.2021, p. 15

---
----

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | The                Quarterly Report 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |     /s/                Raymond R. Brandstrom |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Raymond                R. Brandstrom                             |
|   | Chief                Financial Officer                           |
|   | November                9, 2007                                  |

----
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA 

UNITED ST A TES COAST GUARD 

DECISION OF THE 

VICE COMMANDANT 

V. 

ON APPEAL 

NO. 

MERCHANT MARINER DOCUMENT 

Issued to: SIMONE JOYCE SOLOMON 

APPEARANCES 

For the Government: 

CWO Dan Sammons, USCG 

LT John D. Nee, USCG 

Senior Investigating Officer Mark Gibbs 

For Respondent: 

Graham W. Syfert, Esq. 

Administrative Law Judge: Dean C. Metry 

This appeal is taken in accordance with 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77, 46 C.F.R. Part 5, and 

33 C.F.R. Part 20. 

By a Decision and Order (hereinafter "D&O") dated May 15, 2013, an Administrative Law 

Judge of the United States Coast Guard (hereinafter "ALJ") suspended the Merchant Mariner 

Document of Ms. Simone Joyce Solomon (hereinafter "Respondent") for fourteen months upon 

finding proved one charge of misconduct. The specification found proved alleged that on July 2, 

2012, Respondent, while serving as a crewmember aboard the vessel ALLIANCE 

CHARLESTON, refused a chemical test, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 40.191(b), by submitting what 

according to 49 C.F.R. § 40.93(b) was a substituted urine specimen. 
SOLOMON NO. 

Respondent subsequently appealed the D&O to the Commandant, United States Coast 

Guard, who affirmed the D&O. Respondent then appealed to the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB). In Zukunft v. Solomon, NTSB Order No. EM-213 (March 24, 2016), the NTSB 

remanded the matter for further examination of salient issues. 

The parties now advise that they have reached a tentative settlement agreement, and 

request that the matter be remanded to the ALJ to allow the agreement to be effected. 

ORDER 

The ALJ's Decision and Order dated July 2, 2012, is reversed and the case is REMANDED 

in accordance with the parties' request. 

Charles D. Michel 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard 

Vice Commandant 

Signed at Washington, D.C., this '3d- day of ~ 

2 

'2016.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Hawaii and the Pacific (D14)
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint factsheet">
    <div class="header">

        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/0/Images/Official USCG Emblem.png?ver=0BEUcC5lxfanFqthfDyaOg%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Hawaii and the Pacific (D14)</h1>
        <h3 class="date">
            Updated: June 27, 2018
        </h3>
    </div>
    
<div id="adetail-slick-gallery" class="gallery">
    
    <div class="item">
        
        <div class="image">
            
            <img src="https://media.defense.gov/2018/Jun/27/2001936335/1920/1080/0/180627-G-OY189-714.PNG"
                 class="aimage img-responsive"
                 alt="District 14: Hawaii"
                 itemprop="image" />
        </div>
        
        
        
        
        
        <div class="slide-info-hidden">
            <div class="slide-info-inner">
            
            <div class="image-title">District 14</div>
            <div class="image-caption">District 14: Hawaii</div>
        </div>
    </div>
    </div>

    
</div>
<div class="slide-info"></div>





    Fourteenth District Command Center Number: <span>(808) 535-3333 - For maritime emergency use only </span><br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
# C_2021047EN.01000301.xml

| 10.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/3 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------ |

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9162 — Fincantieri/Chantiers de l’Atlantique) (Text with EEA relevance) (2021/C 47/03) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 On 25 September 2019, the European Commission received notification ( 1 ) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ( 2 ) (‘Merger Regulation’). On 30 October 2019, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings ( 3 ) under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. On 2 February 2021, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification and demonstrated that it abandoned the concentration. ( 1 )  OJ C C 331, 2 October 2019, p. 6. ( 2 )  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1. ( 3 )  OJ C C 382, 11 November 2019, p. 2.

---
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
following Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-13875) pertaining to the Non-Plan Stock Options, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan and Employee
Stock Purchase Plan,
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-43992) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan,
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-58173) pertaining to the Non-Plan Stock Options, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, and 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option
Plan, as amended,
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-108324) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(5) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 333-137203) pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan;
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated March 27, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Hot Topic, Inc. and its subsidiaries, Hot Topic, Inc. and its subsidiaries managements assessment
of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Hot Topic, Inc. and its subsidiaries, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
February 3, 2007.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Los Angeles, California

March 27, 2007