alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HIRNING, Respondent, v. DUNLAP, et al, Appellants.

(266 N. W. 882.)

(File No. 7893.

Opinion filed May 12, 1936.)

*415*Danforth &*Davenport, of Sioux Falls, for Appellants.

*Rice &*Rice, of Flandreau, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought this action to foreclose a certain mortgage. Judgment was for plaintiff, and defendant R. H. Dunlap has attempted to appeal to this court from the judgment entered.

 The specifications of error are set forth in appellants’ brief, and there are also certain so-called assignments of error. Assignments of error Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are without any support in the specifications of error, and must therefore be ignored. Hepner v. Wheatley, 33 S. D. 34, 144 N. W. 923; Sweeney v. Hewett et al, 34 S. D. 302, 148 N. W. 503. The remaining assignments of error merely assert error, but do not point out the error or set forth any reasons as a basis for the alleged error. 'Such assignments are insufficient. Mahoney v. Smith, 41 S. D. 278, 170 N. W. 140; Reeves v. National Fire Insurance Co., 41 S. D. 341, 170 N. W. 575, 4 A. L. R. 1293; Privat v. Grand Bay Land Co., 41 S. D. 494, 171 N. W. 327; Brown v. Brown, 46 S. D. 469, 193 N. W. 596; Burd v. Meader et al, 50 S. D. 641, 211 N. W. 604; Sully v. Egan, 51 S. D. 46, 211 N. W. 803. In some of the assignments the attempt is made to question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings made by the triS.1 court. Appellants’ brief sets forth no abstract of the testimony, such as is required by section 3149, Rev. Code 1919, and rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. It is clear that the sufficiency of the evidence to support the *416findings is not properly presented. Sanford v. Helgerson, 31 S. D. 472, 141 N. W. 390.

It should be stated that counsel for appellant now appearing of record in this court had nothing to do with the trial of the case nor with the preparation of the brief upon appeal.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

All the Judges concur.

WARREN, J., not sitting.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 1,784

 1,637

 850

 1,631

 1,670

 2,084

 1,886

 1,798

 2,347

 3,600

 3,820

 3,986

 3,644

 2,251

 2,576

 2,851

 4,035

 3,700

 4,378

 3,196

 3,355

 2,213

 2,728

 2,919

 4,085

 3,841

 3,737

 3,849

 4,273

 4,037

 325

 309

 285

 264

 304

 321

 332

 350

 375

 372

 311

 435

 346

 353

 327

 364

 407

 414

 418

 304

 414

 431

 450

 532

 456

 516

 485

 485

 428

 510

 671

 582

 384

 518

 627

 628

 672

 753

 931

 1,184

 1,065

 1,163

 1,145

 688

 965

 1,074

 1,296

 1,258

 1,073

 837

 890

 1,035

 1,080

 1,208

 1,522

 1,434

 1,463

 1,726

 1,643

 1,705

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 13, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 8,699

 8,909

 8,928

 8,992

 9,102

 9,231

 9,368

 9,470

 9,717

 10,299

 10,602

 10,884

 11,091

 11,011

 11,305

 11,797

 12,709

 13,449

 13,895

 14,104

 14,322

 14,604

 14,753

 14,777

 15,234

 15,505

 15,823

 16,861

 17,539

 18,170

 621

 636

 638

 642

 650

 659

 669

 676

 694

 736

 757

 777

 792

 787

 808

 843

 908

 961

 993

 1,007

 1,023

 1,043

 1,054

 1,056

 1,088

 1,108

 1,130

 1,204

 1,253

 1,298

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 1,052

 1,063

 1,093

 1,176

 1,187

 1,224

 1,325

 1,396

 1,435

 1,532

 1,534

 1,550

 1,549

 1,571

 1,566

 1,429

 1,403

 1,392

 1,426

 1,591

 1,814

 2,073

 2,091

 2,096

 2,059

 2,110

 2,112

 2,118

 2,005

 1,922

 774

 800

 809

 829

 846

 856

 872

 894

 899

 922

 951

 991

 1,040

 1,021

 1,052

 1,028

 1,034

 1,072

 1,144

 1,226

 1,221

 1,200

 1,214

 1,205

 1,203

 1,198

 1,240

 1,178

 1,120

 1,154

 892

 932

 934

 948

 956

 992

 1,048

 1,090

 1,133

 1,175

 1,230

 1,269

 1,304

 1,294

 1,321

 1,257

 1,244

 1,247

 1,307

 1,369

 1,504

 1,646

 1,740

 1,760

 1,747

 1,736

 1,751

 1,704

 1,602

 1,582

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 27, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

FARRAR PARK AT DUTCH SLOUGH
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00369-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.H. and J.R.H., Children

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-01720

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal.

SIGNED January 13, 2021.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF RYERSON INC. 

 

The subsidiaries of Ryerson Inc. (other than certain subsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, do not constitute a significantsubsidiary), three**(3)** of which are incorporated in the State of Delaware, as noted below, and each of which is wholly owned by Ryerson Inc., are as follows as of December 31, 2005: 

 

Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. 

(a Delaware corporation) 

 

Integris Metals, Inc. 

(a New York corporation) 

 

J. M. TullMetals Company, Inc. 

(a Georgia corporation) 

 

Ryerson Americas, Inc. f/k/a Ryerson Tull International, Inc. 

(a Delaware corporation) 

 

Ryerson Procurement Corporation f/k/a Ryerson Tull Procurement Corporation 

(a Delaware corporation)
(No. 6572

#### Black and Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Various Agencies, Respondent.

*Opinion filed November 21, 1972.*

Black and Company, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
Case 19-13402-BFK    Doc 11-1    Filed 11/08/19    Entered 11/08/19 08:48:10    DescExhibit(s)     Page 1 of 5

Case 19-13402-BFK    Doc 11-1    Filed 11/08/19    Entered 11/08/19 08:48:10    DescExhibit(s)     Page 2 of 5

Case 19-13402-BFK    Doc 11-1    Filed 11/08/19    Entered 11/08/19 08:48:10    DescExhibit(s)     Page 3 of 5

Case 19-13402-BFK    Doc 11-1    Filed 11/08/19    Entered 11/08/19 08:48:10    DescExhibit(s)     Page 4 of 5

Case 19-13402-BFK    Doc 11-1    Filed 11/08/19    Entered 11/08/19 08:48:10    DescExhibit(s)     Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT  TO 18 U.S.C. §
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Gottschalks Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
January 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James R. Famalette,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as enacted by  § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/  James R. Famalette              
|James R. Famalette                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 12, 2006

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

---
§ 97.406 Research involving greater than minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit to individual subjects, but likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the subject's disorder or condition. ED conducts or funds research in which the IRB finds that more than minimal risk to children is presented by an intervention or procedure that does not hold out the prospect of direct benefit for the individual subject, or by a monitoring procedure which is not likely to contribute to the well-being of the subject, only if the IRB finds that— ( a ) The risk represents a minor increase over minimal risk;
( b ) The intervention or procedure presents experiences to subjects that are reasonably commensurate with those inherent in their actual or expected medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational situations;
( c ) The intervention or procedure is likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the subjects' disorder or condition that is of vital importance for the understanding or amelioration of the subjects' disorder or condition; and
( d ) Adequate provisions are made for soliciting assent of the children and permission of their parents or guardians, as set forth in § 97.408.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474; and 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b))
No. 89-6674.

#### Brown *v.*Bi-State Development et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### London Character Shoe Corporation et al., Respondents, v. Alfred S. Davis, as Treasurer of Retail Shoe Salesmens Union, Local 1115-F, American Federation of Labor, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present—Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. •
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J OH N A NTHO NY GO M EZ , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 50599 D. C . No . 3 : 1 0 - c r - 0 2 4 0 9 - J AH ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . H ous t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J ohn A nthonyG om e z appe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i ons a nd 120- m onth s e nt e nc e f

ori m port a t i on of

m a r i j ua naa nd m e tha m phe t a m i ne a nd a i di ng a nd ab e ttin g in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 9 5 2 a n d9 6 0 a n d1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . P u r s u a n t to A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), G om ez ’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef 

# FI LED DE C 23 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50599 2 st at i ng thatthere ar e no g roun ds for r el i ef , al on g w i th a m ot i on t o w i thd raw as co u n sel o f reco rd . W e h av e p ro v i d edG o m ez w i th th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o fi l e a p ro se supp l em ent albri ef

. N o p ro se supp l em ent albri ef has bee n fi l ed. A pp el l ee has fi l eda m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s ua ntt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. W e d is m is s in lig h t o f

th e v a lidap p e a l w a iv e r . See U ni ted States v. N

gu ye n , 235 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 82 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). H ow ever , the j ud gm entdo es no tconform t o the oral pron ou ncem entat sen t en ci n g b ecau se i ti n cl u d es a n o n -st an d ardco n d i t i o n o f sup erv i sedrel ease w hi ch the di stri ctcourtdi d n oti ncl ud e i n the oral pron ou ncem ent . B ec ause an u n a m b ig u o u s o r a l p r o n o u n c e m e n t o f s e n te n c e c o n tr o ls o v e raw r itte n ju d g m e n t, se e U ni ted States v. Hi ck

s , 997 F . 2d 594, 597 ( 9th C i r . 1993) , w e r e m a nd f orthe lim ite dp u rp o s e do f

c o rr e c tin g th e c le r ic a l e rr o r . See F e d . R . C r im . P . 3 6 . C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N T E D . A p p el l ee’ s m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss i s D EN I ED A S M O O T. DI S MI S S E D; RE MAND E D.
#### § 19.710 Inventory of spirits.

A proprietor of an alcohol fuel plant must take a physical inventory of all spirits and fuel alcohol on the bonded premises at the end of each calendar year. The proprietor must record the results of this physical inventory in the records required by § 19.718.

(26 U.S.C. 5201)
Tommy Andrews, Jr. #28544

Derek Bathrick # 46648

Tetiana Zhmachenko #77501

Nupinder Singh, #83335

TOMMY ANDREWS JR., P.C.

122 North Alfred Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

703-838-9004

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

In re: )

QADEER AHMED ) Case No. 19-12644-KHK

) Chapter 13

)

Debtor )

___________________

MOTION TO APPROVE LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT

COMES NOW, QADEER AHMED, Debtor herein, and through undersigned counsel, 

Tommy Andrews, Jr. and Tommy Andrews Jr., P.C., pursuant to 11 U.S.C.§363(b)(1) and 363(f) 

requests this Honorable Court approve the Loan Modification Agreement for certain real property of 

the Debtor’s Estate set forth herein below. As his grounds therefore, he states as follows:

1. Debtor filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy 

Code on August 9, 2019. 

2. On the date of filing Debtor owned real property known as 6109 Fairfield Pl., 

Alexandria, VA 22310. 

3. Debtor and his wife obtained an agreement from Nationstar Mortgage LLC with 

favorable terms to modify the Mortgage Loan with a modified unpaid principal balance of 

$395,230.51. The post modification interest rate will be 4.1250% beginning September 1, 

2021. The post modification principal and interest payment will be $1,682.68 with variable 

escrow, starting October 1, 2021. Maturity date is September 1, 2061. Total monthly payment 

with escrow is $2,243.10, which is lower than the current payment of $2,457.82 by $214.72.

4. The Plan payment will not be increased, because Debtor heavily relies on his children 

assistance and modification will help him to afford Plan payments. 

5. The modification agreement is in the best interest of the Debtors under 11 U.S.C. § 

363(h). 

WHEREFORE, QADEER AHMED respectfully prays that the Loan Modification 

Agreement be approved. 

QADEER AHMED

By Counsel

/s/ Tommy Andrews, Jr.

Tommy Andrews, Jr., Esq. VSB#28544

122 North Alfred Street

Alexandria Virginia 22314

703.838.9004

Case 19-12644-KHK Doc 35 Filed 10/04/21 Entered 10/04/21 15:32:23 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Tommy Andrews, Jr. #28544

Derek Bathrick # 46648

Tetiana Zhmachenko #77501

Nupinder Singh, #83335

TOMMY ANDREWS JR., P.C.

122 North Alfred Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

703-838-9004

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing Motion to Approve Loan 

Modification Agreement was sent via first class mail postage prepaid, or electronically delivered via 

the electronic court filing system to Chapter 13 Trustee, the U.S. Trustee and also sent via first class 

mail postage prepaid to: Bank of America, N.A. on this 4th day of October, 2021.

/s/ Tommy Andrews, Jr.

Tommy Andrews, Jr.

Case 19-12644-KHK Doc 35 Filed 10/04/21 Entered 10/04/21 15:32:23 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
### Part C—Other Provisions
§ 810.104 Applicability of other provisions. ( a ) Projects authorized under § 810.102 shall be deemed to be highway projects for all purposes of title 23 U.S.C., and shall be subject to all regulations of title 23 CFR.
( b ) Projects approved under this subpart on the Federal-aid Interstate System for exclusive or preferential high occupancy vehicle, truck, and emergency vehicle lanes are excepted from the minimum four-lane requirement of 23 U.S.C. 109(b).
( c ) Exclusive or preferential lanes on the Interstate System, including approaches and directly related facilities, can be constructed with Interstate construction funds only if they were approved in the 1981 Interstate Cost Estimate.
( d ) The Federal proportional share of a project approved under this subpart shall be as provided in 23 U.S.C. 120 for the class of funds involved. The Federal share for Interstate substitution projects is 85 percent except for signalization projects which may be 100 percent as provided by 23 U.S.C. 120(d). The provisions of section 120(d) title 23 U.S.C. may also be applied to regularly funded projects under § 810.102 of this subpart as follows: ( 1 ) Signalization projects.
( 2 ) Passenger loading area and facilities which principally serve carpools and vanpools.
( 3 ) Fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities or portions thereof which are reserved exclusively for use by carpool and vanpool passengers and vehicles.
( e ) As required by section 163 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, approval of Federal-aid highway funding for a physical construction or resurfacing project having a carpool lane(s) within the project limits may not be granted unless the project allows the use of the carpool lane(s) by motorcycles or it is certified by the State that such use will create a safety hazard. This requirement does not apply to high occupancy vehicle lanes which exclude carpools or to carpool lanes constructed by the State without the use of Federal-aid Highway funds. The issue of the extent of utilization of these facilities including those constructed prior to January 6, 1982 with Federal-aid Highway funds is a matter for individual determination by the State Highway Agency.
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear by T.D. ATF-235, 66 FR 5473, Jan. 19, 2001, and T.D. ATF-463 and T.D. ATF-462, 66 FR 42733, 42736, Aug. 15, 2001.

#### § 20.20 Delegations of the Administrator.

The regulatory authorities of the Administrator contained in this part are delegated to appropriate TTB officers. These TTB officers are specified in the current version of TTB Order 1135.20, Delegation of the Administrator's Authorities in 27 CFR Part 20, Distribution and Use of Denatured Alcohol and Rum. You may obtain a copy of this order by accessing the TTB Web site (*http://www.ttb.gov*) or by mailing a request to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, National Revenue Center, 550 Main Street, Room 1516, Cincinnati, OH 45202.

[T.D. TTB-44, 71 FR 16934, Apr. 4, 2006 ,as amended by T.D. TTB-140, 81 FR 59456, Aug. 30, 2016]
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT AND SPLITTAIL

November-09

Colored background verified with DFG's report Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Delta Smelt Splittail Longfin Pumping

Daily Total Daily T

Daily Combined Daily Combined Daily In CFS In Acre 

DATE Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day Total

SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N Total Average SWP CVP Total Average SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N

1-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,354 3,792 7,146 6,653 72-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 905 3,463 4,368 1,796 6

3-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 868 3,463 4,331 1,722 6

4-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 879 3,484 4,363 1,743 6

5-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 844 3,479 4,323 1,675 6

6-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,469 3,469 0 6

7-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 885 3,464 4,349 1,756 6

8-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 875 3,455 4,330 1,736 6

9-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 882 3,446 4,328 1,750 6

10-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 880 3,443 4,323 1,745 6

11-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 880 3,443 4,323 1,746 6

12-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 882 3,441 4,323 1,750 6

13-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,072 3,447 4,520 2,127 6

14-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,081 3,445 4,527 2,145 6

15-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,004 1,932 2,936 1,991 3

16-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,210 3,046 4,256 2,400 6

17-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,083 2,884 3,967 2,148 5

18-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,081 2,887 3,969 2,145 5

19-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,083 2,242 3,325 2,149 4

20-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,078 1,988 3,067 2,139 3

21-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,083 1,986 3,069 2,149 3

22-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,079 1,982 3,061 2,141 3

23-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,043 1,976 3,019 2,068 3

24-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,913 1,973 3,886 3,794 3

25-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,405 1,969 5,373 6,753 3

26-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,386 1,971 5,357 6,716 3

27-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,920 1,978 4,898 5,792 3

28-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,883 1,987 4,871 5,719 3

29-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,492 1,978 5,470 6,926 330-Nov-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,138 1,977 5,115 6,224 3

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 0 0 0 XXXX 45,172 83,492 128,663 89,598 165

Official numbers are posted on DFG's websiteNote: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG.

Banks Tracy Combined Banks 

Trac
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the transition report of Yayi International
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Veronica Jing Chen, 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/ Veronica Jing Chen 
| | -----------------------
| | Veronica Jing Chen     
| | Chief Financial Officer

June 28, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Yayi International Inc. and will be retained by Yayi
International Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER W ITHDRAWING M EDIATION O RDER

Appellate case name: Christopher A. Skidmore, Anne Goettee Skidmore, Catherine Goette

Echols and Skidmore Homes, Inc. v. Gremillion & Co. Fine Art, Inc.

App ellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00829

- CV

Date motion filed: October 12, 2018

Type of Motion: Objection to Mediation

Party filing motion: Appell ee

Trial court case number: 2018

- 22505

Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County



### It is ORDERED that Appellee ’s objection to mediation is granted. We withdraw

our Mediation Order dated October 11, 2018

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Higl e y

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 12, 2018