alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                                906 Certification

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     The certificate set forth below is being submitted in connection with the
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, (the "Report")
for the purpose of complying with the Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

     Denny Lee, the Chief Financial Officer of NetEase.com, Inc., certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

     2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respect, the financial condition and results of operations of
          NetEase, Inc.

Date: June 25, 2004



                                                  By: /s/ Denny Lee
                                                      --------------------------
                                                  Name: Denny Lee
                                                  Title: Chief 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 NetEase.com, Inc. and will be
retained by NetEase.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas S. Rice, True Name Clarence Thomas Spring Rice, Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, convicting him of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree, and from intermediate orders. Judgment unanimously affirmed. No opinion. No separate appeal lies from the intermediate orders, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Present — Nolan, P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.
§ 1211.20 Purpose, scope, and application. ( a ) *Purpose.* Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a), requires every manufacturer (including importers) and private labeler of a product which is subject to a consumer product safety standard to issue a certificate that the product conforms to the applicable standard, and to base that certificate either on a test of each product or on a “reasonable testing program.” The purpose of this subpart is to establish requirements that manufacturers and importers of automatic residential garage door operators subject to the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators (16 CFR part 1211, subpart A), shall issue certificates of compliance in the form specified.
( b ) *Scope and application.* The provisions of this subpart apply to all residential garage door operators which are subject to the requirements of the Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators that take effect on January 1, 1993 or later.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

N O . 09

- 19

- 00358

- CV

__________________

ROBERT R . HERMAN AND ELENA HERMAN , Appellant s

V.

BLOOM 827, LLC , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 58th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A

- 202,407

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert R . Herman and Elena Herman appeal from a judgment signed August

16, 2019 . On December 16 , 20 19 , we notified the parties that the clerk’s record had

not been filed due to the appellant s’ failure to pay, or to arrange to pay, the District

Clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice also warned the appellant s

that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless t he y established2 that t he y paid the fee or needed additional time to do so. None of the parties filed a

response.

The re being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to file the clerk’s

record, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b);

see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 5, 2020

Opinion Delivered February 6, 2020

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
§ 996.31 Termination of the Quality Assurance Program. ( a ) NOAA reserves the right to terminate the Quality Assurance Program for a particular hydrographic product or class at any time before certification is awarded if it is deemed to be in the public interest to do so. NOAA shall give written notification to the sponsor and other interested parties should it decide to exercise this option, and shall state the reasons for its action. Reasons for termination may include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) The inability of the standards-drafting group to reach a consensus on the content of the standard;
( 2 ) Valid objections to the existence of NOAA-certification of a particular hydrographic product or class;
( 3 ) A negative impact on public safety should the hydrographic product receive certification;
( 4 ) Other relevant reasons as they become apparent.
( b ) The sponsor or other interested parties shall have 30 days to request a reconsideration of the termination action. Said request shall be in writing to the Quality Assurance Program address, and shall include written material supporting the appeal. NOAA shall have, if its other obligations permit, 60 calendar days from the receipt of a request for reconsideration to either deny the request, or to reconsider and announce its decision.
( c ) NOAA's decision, either the original decision if unappealed within 30 days, or the decision after the request for reconsideration, shall be considered final.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Daniel K. Atler, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ikanos Communications, Inc. (the “Company”);

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;

 

4. The Company’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and have:

 

a. Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

b. Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

c. Disclosed inthis report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (theCompany’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The Company’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a. All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b. Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: November 15, 2005

 
|   | /s/ DANIEL K. ATLER     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Daniel K. Atler         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 98-10884 Summary Calendar

__________________

WILLIE RANDLE Plaintiff - Appellant

v. TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC, also known as TCI Cablevision Dallas Defendant - Appellee.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(3:97-CV-334-R)

______________________________________________

December 21, 1998 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant, Willie Randle (Randle), appeals from an
adverse summary judgment dismissing his alleged race-based
termination claim which he brought pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights

Act. The district court found that Randle established a prima2

facie case, but dismissed his action due to Randle’s failure to produce competent summary judgment evidence raising a fact issue or demonstrating that Appellee’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Randle’s d ischarge were a pretext for
discrimination. After a de novo review of the record, we conclude
that the district court’s conclusion is correct. We affirm for the reasons set forth in Judge Buchmeyer’s well reasoned and thorough Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 26, 1998.

AFFIRMED.
1The HONORABLE HENRY L. JONES, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-4086

___________

Judy Richardson, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, * Eastern District of Arkansas. 

Social Security Administration, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 26, 1999

 Filed: July 30, 1999

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Judy Richardson appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We affirm.

At a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), Richardson testified that

she suffers from scoliosis, colitis, migraine headaches, and back pain. Following the
-2-

hearing, the ALJ found that Richardson’s scoliosis did not qualify as a listed

impairment, noting that Richardson’s orthopaedist had not recommended surgery. The

ALJ further noted that Richardson apparently no longer suffered from colitis and

migraines following a colectomy and hysterectomy. Considering the factors set forth

in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984), the ALJ discounted

Richardson’s subjective complaints of disabling pain, and found that she retained the

residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant secretarial work.

We conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s decision.

See Bates v. Chater, 54 F.3d 529, 531-32 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review).

Richardson’s scoliosis, though severe, did not qualify as a listed impairment as none

of her doctors indicated she suffered any motor, sensory, or reflex loss. See Marciniak

v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (8th Cir. 1995); 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P., app.

1, § 1.05(C) (1998). The medical evidence and Richardson’s testimony (inter alia, that

conservative treatment measures provided some relief) do not substantiate disabling

pain. See Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386-87 (8th Cir. 1998); Stout v. Shalala, 988

F.2d 853, 855 (8th Cir. 1993). The ALJ also properly determined that Richardson

could return to her past relevant work. See Johnston v. Shalala, 42 F.3d 448, 452 (8th

Cir. 1994); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) (defining sedentary work). 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
| 1.     | Such      Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, 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 Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the period      ended December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Segway IV      Corp. |

| By:    | /s/ Donny      Smith               Donny      SmithChief      Executive OfficerChief      Financial Officer |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                     |

| Dated: | January  29,      2009 |
|--------|----------------------------------|
### §10713. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the purposes of this chapter, $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Amounts appropriated for each such year are to remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 98–620, title II, §215, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3346; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7321(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4466; Pub. L. 100–702, title VI, §607, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4654; Pub. L. 101–162, title V, Nov. 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1028; Pub. L. 102–572, title VIII, §801, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4515; Pub. L. 108–372, §2, Oct. 25, 2004, 118 Stat. 1754.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title II of Pub. L. 98–620, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3336, known as the State Justice Institute Act of 1984, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 10701 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–372 amended section generally, inserting section catchline and substituting provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal years 2005 to 2008 for provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal years 1993 to 1996.

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section authorized appropriations of $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.

1989—Pub. L. 101–162 repealed Pub. L. 100–702, §607, and revived Pub. L. 100–690, §7321(a). See 1988 Amendment notes below.

1988—Pub. L. 100–702, §607, which amended section generally, substituting appropriations authorization of $15,000,000 for fiscal years 1989 and 1990, such amounts to remain available until expended for authorization of $15,000,000 for fiscal years 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992, was repealed by Pub. L. 101–162, title V.

Pub. L. 100–690, §7321(a), as revived by Pub. L. 101–162, title V, amended section generally, substituting appropriations authorization of $15,000,000 for fiscal years 1989 through 1992 for authorization of $13,000,000 for fiscal year 1986 and $15,000,000 for fiscal years 1987 and 1988.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1985, see section 216 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as a note under section 10701 of this title.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF


CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
connection with this Annual Report of Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding
Limited (the “Company”) on the Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, James Crane, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            Such
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2009 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
      ending June 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of Longwei Petroleum
      Investment Holding Limited.





Date: October
13, 2009








By:/s/  James
Crane





James
Crane


Chief
Financial Officer
§ 14.9 Requirements concerning clear and conspicuous disclosures in foreign language advertising and sales materials. The Federal Trade Commission has noted that, with increasing intensity, advertisers are making special efforts to reach foreign language-speaking consumers. As part of this special effort, advertisements, brochures and sales documents are being printed in foreign languages. In recent years the Commission has issued various cease-and-desist orders as well as rules, guides and other statements, which require affirmative disclosures in connection with certain kinds of representations and business activities. Generally, these disclosures are required to be “clear and conspicuous.” Because questions have arisen as to the meaning and application of the phrase “clear and conspicuous” with respect to foreign language advertisements and sales materials, the Commission deems it appropriate to set forth the following enforcement policy statement: ( a ) Where cease-and-desist orders as well as rules, guides and other statements require “clear and conspicuous” disclosure of certain information in an advertisement or sales material in a newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication that is not in English, the disclosure shall appear in the predominant language of the publication in which the advertisement or sales material appears. In the case of any other advertisement or sales material, the disclosure shall appear in the language of the target audience (ordinarily the language principally used in the advertisement or sales material).
( b ) Any respondent who fails to comply with this requirement may be the subject of a civil penalty or other law enforcement proceeding for violating the terms of a Commission cease-and-desist order or rule.
(Sec. 5, 38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45)
[38 FR 21494, Aug. 9, 1973, as amended at 63 FR 34808, June 26, 1998]
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b)  AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DTS, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jon E. Kirchner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
May 10, 2010

By:

/s/ JON E. KIRCHNER Jon E. Kirchner Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to DTS, Inc. and will be retained by
DTS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
# L_2021003EN.01000301.xml

| 7.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 3/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 3/3

---

Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China

The Agreement on civil aviation safety between the European Union and the Government of the People’s Republic of China, signed in Brussels on 20 May 2019, entered into force on 1 September 2020, in accordance with Article 17(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 20 July 2020.

---
ACCEPTED12-13-00241-CRTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS4/24/2015 12:17:40 PMCATHY LUSKCLERK