alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N1-Network Protection Devices

USGv6_NPD.html[3/30/18, 11:12:55 AM]

USGv6 Test Selection Tables*

Netowrk Protection Devices Common Requirements

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, July 2008.

Configuration Option: NPD 

Test Specification Id:

[Network Protection Devices] Network Protection Devices Test Specification version 1.2, [editor: ICSA Labs ].

Reference:

[Profile-v1] NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, July 2008.

Common NPD Requirements Checklist

Reference Test Specification Id Test Number Device Type

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.1.1: Configuration of protective functionality NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.2.1: Support Dual Stack NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.3.1: Configuration of protective functionality NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.3.2: Configuration of logging and alert facility configurations NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.4.1: Selectively restricting rights to the administrative interface NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.4.2: Individual rights NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.5.1: Administrative access NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.5.2: Administrative communications NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.6.1: Persistence of device settings NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.7.1,1.7.2: Configuration change logging NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.8.1: Proper handling of fragmented packets NPD

Profile-v1 Network Protection Devices 1.9.1. Handling of v4/v6 Tunneling Schemes NPD

* The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies tests applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of BTU
International, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to his knowledge:

     3)  the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
         ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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




                                    /S/ Thomas P. Kealy
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Thomas P. Kealy
                                    Vice President, Corporate Controller
                                    and Chief Accounting Officer (principal
                                    financial and accounting officer)


Dated:  August 14, 2002
#### Lenard J. Hamilton, Appellant, *v.*Royal Indemnity Company, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 9, 1925.

Pleadings — counterclaim — unsatisfied judgment in favor of defendant’s principal against plaintiff’s assignor not assigned to defendant — defendant may not plead said judgment as set-off.

The defendant may not avail itself of an unsatisfied judgment in favor of its principal against plaintiff’s assignor and plead it as a set-off, though said judgment was recovered prior to the entry of the judgment assigned to plaintiff, where it was not assigned to defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, First District, in favor of defendant.

*Milton C. Weisman,*for the appellant.

*David Haar,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

The defendant herein cannot avail itself of the unsatisfied judgment in favor of its principal against the plaintiff’s assignor. If this judgment had been assigned to the defendant, a different question would have arisen. The mere fact that it was recovered prior to the entry of the judgment assigned to plaintiff and is unsatisfied is not sufficient to entitle the defendant to plead it as a set-off.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $123.97, with interest and costs of the action.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mitchell and Proskauer, JJ.
| (1)          | The      Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, fully      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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      Registrant |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Jia Zhi Hong                                             |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: March 31,      2010                               |   |
| Chief Executive      Officer and Principal Financial Officer |   |
11535.

#### Central of Georgia Railway Co. *v.*Thompson.

Smith, J.

1. Whether or not the frequent and continued use of the defendant’s right of way at the point where the deceased met his death was such as to require the defendant company to anticipate the presence of pedestrians on or near the track, and whether, with such notice and resulting duty, ordinary care was exercised by it, are questions" of fact for determination by a jury. *Williams*v. *Southern Ry. Co.,*11 *Ga. App.*309, 313 (75 S. E. 572) ; *Western & Atlantic R. Co.*v. *Watkins,*14 *Ga. App.*392 (80 S. E. 916); *Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.*v. *Burroughs,*20 *Ga. App.*197 (2) (92 S. E. 1010).

2. While it is true that a railroad-track is a place of danger, and one who trespasses thereon is guilty of negligence, yet when the company discovers this negligence, or has reason to anticipate it, and if such a trespasser is on the track in an apparently helpless condition, ordinary diligence requires the use of every means then available to avoid running down and killing him; and if, under such circumstances, this degree of care is not exercised, and death results, the killing will be deemed in law to have been wilful and wanton. Contributory negligence on the part even of a trespasser will not defeat a recovery for a wanton homicide. See *Central Railway Co.*v. *Pelfry,*11 *Ga. App.*119, 125 (74 S. E. 854).

3. While it may be assumed that an adult walking on a railroad-track will get off in time to avoid injury to himself, the rule is otherwise as to children of tender years, or persons who appear to be disabled by deafness, intoxication, sleep, or other cause, from taking care of themselves. *Western & Atlantic R. Co.*v. *Bailey,*105 *Ga.*101, 102 (31 S. E. 547); *Central Railroad*v. *Brinson,*70 *Ga.*207; *Baston*v. *Georgia Railroad,*60 *Ga.*339.

4. Applying these principles to the petition as amended, the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

5. The petition as amended contained allegations that “ defendant saw deceased on the track; ” that “ defendant saw or ought to have seen *716deceased on the track; ” and that “defendant’s servants did not sec deceased upon the track.” Certainty of statement is one of the paramount aims of pleading; and the plaintiff obviously-violated this essential rule by basing his case, in the same count, upon such inconsistent allegations as to render it impossible for the defendant to tell whether he was relying on actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of the deceased on the track. It was, therefore, reversible error of the court to overrule a special demurrer pointing out this ambiguity. See *Central Railway Co.*v. Prior, 142 *Ga.*536, 537 (1) (83 S. E. 117). The other special demurrers were properly overruled.

Decided October 19, 1920.

Action lor damages; from Burke superior court — Judge Henry 0. Hammond. April 6, 1920.

*H. W. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. J. Fullbright, C. H. & R. S. Cohen,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
                     Officer of Southern First Bancshares, Inc. (the "company"), each
                     certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this certification: 1.
                           
                           
                           The annual report of the company for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2010, and amended on Form 10-K/A on this date
                     (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
                           
                           
                           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
                     of the company.  Date: March 9, 2010
                           
                           
                           By:
                           
                           /s/R. Arthur Seaver, Jr.R. Arthur Seaver, Jr.Chief Executive Officer  Date: March 9, 2010
                           
                           
                           By:
                           
                           /s/James M. Austin, IIIJames M. Austin, IIIChief Financial Officer


---
Exhibit 23.3

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated March 31, 2006, with respect to the financial statements of CG  OMNOVA Decorative Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., included in this Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) of OMNOVA Solutions Inc. for the year ended November 30, 2005.

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



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-112530 on Form S-3,
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-100558 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88143 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88145 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-34938 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88587 on Form S-3,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-88143 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-34938 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our report dated March 31, 2006, with respect to the financial statements of CG  OMNOVA Decorative Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in this Form
10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) of OMNOVA Solutions Inc.



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young Hua Ming, Shanghai Branch
|                                           
|Shanghai, The Peoples Republic of China   
|                                           
|March 31, 2006                             

This branch is authorised by Ernst & Young Hua Ming Head Office for execution of its business on its behalf.
11269.

#### Reynolds *v.*The State.

Decided April 13, 1920.

Indictment for murder; from Putnam superior court — Judge Park. December 20, 1919.

*Davidson, Callaway & DeJarnette,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative and impeaching in its character, and, therefore, under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, affords no ground for a new trial.

2. There was some evidence which authorized the defendant’s conviction of manslaughter, and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without jurisdiction to interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
#### Gregory OSBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GORDON & SCHWENKMEYER CORP.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-55435.

D.C. No. CV-99-00252-DOC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided May 29, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory Osborne appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his breach of contract and employment discrimination action, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging harassment and discrimination because of his gender, sexual orientation and disability. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment. *Sorosky v. Burroughs Corp.,*826 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court properly granted defendant Women’s Campaign Fund’s (“WCF”) motion for summary judgment because Osborne failed to provide evidence that WCF was his employer. *See Morgan v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,*884 F.2d 1211, 1213-15 (9th Cir.1989).

Because Osborne failed to present aggravating factors sufficient to establish a claim for constructive discharge, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Osborne’s breach of contract claims. *See Brooks v. City of San Mateo,*229 F.3d 917, 930-31 (9th Cir.2000).

Because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does not subject an employer to liability under Title VII, the district court properly granted summary judgment on this claim. *See DeSantis v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.,*608 F.2d 327, 329-30 (9th Cir.1979).

Contrary to Osborne’s contention, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his disability discrimination claim because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. *See EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co.,*31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1994).

Because Osborne’s evidence is insufficient to establish an adverse employment action, *see Ray v. Henderson,*217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir.2000), and Osborne’s evidence is insufficient to establish same-sex harassment, *see Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel,*243 F.3d 1206, 1209-1210 (9th Cir.2001), the district court properly granted summary judgment on his discrimination and harassment claims.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Osborne’s discovery motions because his requests exceeded the *555scope of his complaint. *See Sorosky,*826 F.2d at 805.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may. not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   870
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,158,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,158,612
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,417
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (54,845)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,845)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,845)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00610-WS-B

J.O. DAVIS CORRECTIONAL :

FACILITY, et al.,

 :

Defendants.

:

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file

deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there having been no

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion

of this court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the

Court's Order.

DONE this 6th day of April, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00610-WS-B Document 13 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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








William
      C. Owens as Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group,
      Inc., the General Partner of Owens Mortgage Investment Fund, a California
      Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”), and Bryan H. Draper, as Chief Financial
      Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:


(1)           
      the Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”) fully complies with the applicable 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 Registrant.








/s/
      William C. Owens


William
      C. Owens


Chief
      Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General
      Partner


August
      14, 2007








/s/
      Bryan H. Draper


Bryan
      H.
      Draper


Chief
      Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General
      Partner


August
      14, 2007
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 
  (furnished, not filed)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Black Warrior Wireline
Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Ronald Whitter, 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 results of operations of the Company.


/s/Ronald Whitter

Ronald Whitter
Chief Financial Officer 
August 26, 2004



---
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT (21)(a)
 
                   SUBSIDIARIES OF MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 
    The  following is a list  of the subsidiaries of the  Company as of June 30,
1997. Other  subsidiaries,  which  considered  in  the  aggregate  as  a  single
subsidiary would not constitute a significant subsidiary, have been omitted.
 
    The   consolidated  financial  statements  reflect  the  operations  of  all
subsidiaries as they  existed on  June 30,  1997, except  for certain  primarily
inactive  subsidiaries not considered significant  as defined in Regulation S-X,
Rule 1.02(v).
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                STATE OR OTHER
                                                                JURISDICTION OF
                                                                INCORPORATION OR
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                              ORGANIZATION
------------------------------------------------------------    ----------------
 
<S>                                                             <C>
Bee Chemical Company........................................    Illinois
 
CVD Incorporated............................................    Delaware
 
The Canadian Salt Company Limited...........................    Canada
 
Compagnie des Salins du Midi et des Salines de l'Est........    France
 
Inagua Transports, Incorporated.............................    Liberia
 
Morton Bahamas Limited......................................    Bahamas
 
    Inagua General Store, Limited...........................    Bahamas
 
Morton International B.V....................................    The Netherlands
 
Morton International Co., Ltd...............................    Japan
 
Morton International G.m.b.H................................    Germany
 
    IRO Chemie Verwaltungsgesellschaft m.b.H................    Germany
 
Morton International Limited................................    England
 
Morton International, Ltd...................................    Canada
 
Morton International, Ltd...................................    Japan
 
Morton International S.A....................................    France
 
    Morton S.A..............................................    France
 
Morton International, S.A. de C.V...........................    Mexico
 
Morton International S.p.A..................................    Italy
 
Morton Yokohama, Inc........................................    Delaware
    (50% owned by Morton International, Inc.)
 
N.V. Morton International S.A...............................    Belgium
 
Nippon-Bee Chemical Co. Ltd.................................    Japan
    (50% owned by Bee Chemical Company)
 
Pulverlac S.p.A.............................................    Italy
 
    (90% owned by Morton International, Inc.)
 
Toray Thiokol Company, Ltd..................................    Japan
    (5% owned by Morton International, Inc.)
 
Toyo-Morton, Limited........................................    Japan
    (50% owned by Morton International, Inc.)
</TABLE>
 
                                      S-2