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

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

| 1.     | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September                30, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the period ending September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                Classic Costume Company, Inc. |

|                                                   | **CLASSIC              COSTUME COMPANY, INC.** |                                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |                                           |                                                  |   |
| Dated:                November                14, 2007 | By:                                            | /s/ *Carl              Oberg*                    |   |
|                                                   |                                           | Carl              Oberg                               |   |
|                                                   |                                           | Chief              Executive              Officer and |   |
|                                                   |                                           | Principal                Financial Officer            |   |
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 Interior

###### Office of the Secretary

###### Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission

Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 552b of Title 5, United States Code, that a meeting of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission will be held on Thursday, September 18, 2008.

The Commission was established pursuant to Pub. L. 99-647. The purpose of the Commission is to assist federal, state and local authorities in the development and implementation of an integrated resource management plan for those lands and waters within the Corridor.

The meeting will convene on September 18, 2008 at 9 a.m. at Banneker Industries, located at 582 Great Road, North Smithfield, RI for the following reasons:

1. Approval of Minutes

2. Chairman's Report

3. Executive Director's Report

4. Financial Budget

5. Public Input

It is anticipated that about thirty people will be able to attend the session in addition to the Commission members.

Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made prior to the meeting to: Jan H. Reitsma, Executive Director, John H. Chafee, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, One Depot Square, Woonsocket, RI 02895, Tel.: (401) 762-0250.

Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Jan H. Reitsma, Executive Director of the Commission at the aforementioned address.

Jan H. Reitsma,

Executive Director, BRVNHCC.

[FR Doc. E8-17789 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES JONES,

 

Plaintiff, Case Number 2:09-CV-11283

 Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LEE,

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MASSENGILL,

and MONROE COUNTY JAIL,

Respondents,

_______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING “MOTION TO STAY OF JUDGMENT”

On March 28, 2012, the Court entered an Order and Judgment adopting a report and

recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff has since appealed the Court’s Order and

Judgment. Related to Plaintiff’s appeal, he filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal and a motion to amend complaint, which the court denied. Currently pending before the

Court is Plaintiff’s motion, entitled “Motion to Stay of Judgment pending Appeal under App. R.

8(1)(A) and Civ R. 60(b)(6)” [dkt 49]. Plaintiff requests that the Court stay its Judgment pending

the resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal currently before the Sixth Circuit. 

The legal authority relied on by Plaintiff provides no basis to support his request. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b)(6) provides that the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment for “any other

reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) does not state that the Court may stay a

judgment. Even assuming that Rule 60 did apply, Plaintiff has provided no reason that justifies such

relief. Moreover, Fed. App. R. 8(1)(A) merely provides the mechanism for which Plaintiff can seek

a stay before the Sixth Circuit, stating that a party must first move in the district court for “a stay of

2:09-cv-11283-LPZ-PJK Doc # 51 Filed 06/18/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 373
2

the judgment or order . . . pending appeal.” Fed. App. R. 8(1)(A), as with all Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, governs procedure in the United States court of appeals, not the district courts.

Fed. App. R. 1(a)(1). Anytime the rules require filing documents with the district court, the

procedural rules followed by the district court apply. Id. at 1(a)(2). In this instance, Plaintiff has

failed to set forth any district court procedure, or any legal authority for that matter, that justifies

stay of the Judgment pending appeal. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion to Stay of Judgment pending Appeal under App. R. 8(1)(A)

and Civ R. 60(b)(6)” [dkt 49] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 18, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on June 18, 2012.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-11283-LPZ-PJK Doc # 51 Filed 06/18/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 374
1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inter-Atlantic 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 respects 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)) for the registrant and have:
    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 the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Andrew S. Lerner

Name: Andrew S. LernerTitle: 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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 of World Series of Golf, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: May 13, 2011
By:
/s/ James TiltonJames TiltonChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)





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 World Series of Golf, Inc. and will be retained by World Series of Golf, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

TheBoard of Directors

SamsoniteCorporation:

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.333-57014, 333-128685 and 333-128684) on Form S-8 of Samsonite Corporationof our report dated May 11, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of Samsonite Corporation and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2006and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’equity (deficit) and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each ofthe years in the three-year period ended January 31, 2006, and the relatedfinancial statement schedule, which report appears in the January 31, 2006annual report on Form 10-K of Samsonite Corporation.

 

Ourreport included an explanatory paragraph stating that, as discussed inNote 2, Samsonite Corporation restated its consolidated financialstatements as of January 31, 2005 and for the years ended January 31,2005 and 2004.

 
|   | /s/  KPMG LLP |   |
|--------|---------------|--------|

 

 

Denver,Colorado

May11, 2006

 

----
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CHINA GREEN CREATIVE, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Green Creative, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ye Xing Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my 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/ Ye Xing Zhang. Ye Xing Zhang Chief Executive Officer May 24, 2010 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINDA G. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST FRANKLIN, a Division of National

City Bank of Indiana, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 2:09-cv-11096

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [docket

no. 20] AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [docket no. 14]

This is an action for constructive fraud brought by a borrower against her lender and

the assignees of her mortgage, following the foreclosure of her mortgage and subsequent

Sheriff's sale of her home. Plaintiff Linda G. Anderson has named First Franklin, First

Franklin Financial Corporation, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Home Loan

Services, Inc. as Defendants. The action was filed by Anderson in Wayne County Circuit

Court on March 9, 2009 and removed to this Court by defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1332, 1441 and 1446, based on the diverse citizenship of the parties. Before the Court

is defendants' motion to dismiss, filed on May 8, 2009, and the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Paul Komives, filed on January 29, 2010. The

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation recommended that the motion to dismiss

be granted for failure to state a claim. The Magistrate Judge also notified the parties that

any objections must be filed within fourteen days of service. No party has filed objections

to the report and recommendations.

The Court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the report and
2

recommendation, the Court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Because neither party filed timely objections to

Magistrate Judge Komives’ report and recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this Court need not and will not conduct a review.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation

[docket entry 20] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss [docket entry 14] is

GRANTED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: February 26, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on February 26, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Alissa Greer 

Case Manager
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4048

To enhance California’s habitat, water quality, and water supply.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 11, 1996

Mr. BAKER of California (for himself, Mr. RIGGS, Mrs. SEASTRAND, Mr.

RADANOVICH, Mr. HORN, Mr. DREIER, Mr. KIM, and Mr. CALVERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on

Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To enhance California’s habitat, water quality, and water

supply.

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 ‘‘California Environ5 mental Enhancement and Water Security Act’’.
2

•HR 4048 IH

1 SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR PROGRAM DESCRIBED IN DOCU2 MENT ‘‘PRINCIPLE FOR AGREEMENT ON BAY3 DELTA STANDARDS BETWEEN THE STATE OF

4 CALIFORNIA AND THE FEDERAL GOVERN5 MENT’’.

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For each

7 of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, there are authorized

8 to be appropriated $143,300,000 for the Federal share of

9 the cost of implementing the program described in the

10 document entitled ‘‘Principle for Agreement on Bay-Delta

11 Standards Between the State of California and the Fed12 eral Government’’, dated December 15, 1994.

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

14 on the date of passage of 1996 California State propo15 sition 204.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ALETHEIA RESEARCH

MANAGEMENT,

Defendant,

and

PETER J. EICHLER, Jr.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 55887

D.C. No. 2:12

- cv

- 10692

- JFW

- RZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017 **

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 55887

Peter J. Eichler, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court ’s order granting the

Securities Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion for monetary remedies in its

c ivil enforcement action alleging violation s of t he Investment Advise rs Act of

1940 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934

. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. SEC v. First Pac. Bancorp

,

142 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1998) (disgorgement); Fed. Electi on Comm’n v.

Furgatch , 869 F.2d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1989) (civil penalty). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the disgorgement of

$1,655,923 and relying on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s expert in

setting the disgorgement amount

. See SEC v. JT Wallenbrock & Assocs ., 440 F.3d

1109, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006) ( “[T]he district court has broad equity powers to order

the disgorgement of ill

- gotten gains obtained through the violation of federal

securities laws” and “broad discretion in c alculating the amount to be disgorged .”

( citations and internal quotation marks omitte d)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in setting the civil penalty

equal to the disgorgement amount. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u (d)(3)(B) ( authorizing civil

penalties equal to the amount of pecuniary gains as a result of securities

violations) ; 1 5 U.S.C. § 80b

- 9(e)(2) (same)

.3 15

- 55887

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie Sylvester HAWKINS, a/k/a Jaime Sylvester Hawkins, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6926.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 18, 2003.

Decided Aug. 11, 2003.

Jamie Sylvester Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, MD, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jamie Sylvester Hawkins, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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 absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied, 534 U.S.*941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hawkins 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36317-36318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17164]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANM-3]


Proposed Establishment of Temporary Restricted Area R-3203D, 
Orchard, ID

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
published in the Federal Register on April 22, 1996. The NPRM proposed 
to establish a temporary restricted area at Orchard, ID, to support the 
Idaho National Guard's increased training requirements. The FAA has 
determined that withdrawal of the proposal is warranted because 
insufficient time exists to complete the required rulemaking action for 
the additional restricted airspace prior to the exercise start date.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn July 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules 
Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone: (202) 267-3075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 22, 1996, an NPRM was published in 
the Federal Register to amend Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations part 73 (14 CFR part 73) to establish a temporary 
restricted area at Orchard, ID, to support the Idaho National Guard's 
increased training requirements (61 FR 17608). No comments were 
received on the proposal.

[[Page 36318]]

    The FAA has decided to withdraw the proposal at this time because 
insufficient time exists to complete the required rulemaking action for 
the additional restricted airspace prior to the exercise start date.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, Airspace Docket No. 96-ANM-3, as published in the Federal 
Register on April 22, 1996 (61 FR 17608), is hereby withdrawn.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 1996.
Nancy B. Kalinowski,
Acting Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
[FR Doc. 96-17164 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P