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



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 18 U.S.C SECTION
1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Shengtai
Pharmaceutical, Inc., the “Company,” on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the “Report,” I, Qingtai Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.       The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



Date: April 9, 2012



| | SHENGTAI PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
| | -----------------------------
| |                              
| | /s/ Qingtai Liu              
| | Qingtai Liu                  
| | Chief Executive Officer
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

34 36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
#### Embry *v.*The State.

August 13, 1912.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Meadow. Madison superior court. May 9, 1912.

*George G. Thomas, B. L. J. & S. J. Smith,*and *J. F. L. Bond,*for plaintiff in error. *Thomas S. Felder, attorney-general,*and *Thomas J. Brown, solicitor-general,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. That a juror’s name is not on the jury list or in the jury box is not cause for a new trial, when the point is raised for the first time after verdict. Being an objection propter defectum, it should be discovered and urged before verdict. *Somers*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*535 (42 S. E. 779); *Jordan*v. *State,*119 *Ga.*443 (46 S. E. 679).

2. Where, after verdict, in a motion for a new trial the impartiality of two of the jurors was attacked, and there was a showing and a counter-showing on the subject, and the presiding judge passed on the conflicting evidence, his finding will not be reversed, unless he has abused his discretion. *Jefferson*v. *State,*137 *Ga.*382 (73 S. E. 499).

3. If the charge on the subject of mutual combat, of which complaint was made, was not altogether as clear and exact as it might have been, under the evidence it does not require a reversal on the ground that it was “too vague and uncertain, and because the court failed to give the jury the law, if any, which distinguishes between mutual combat— that is to say that the court failed to charge the jury when death results from a mutual combat between two parties when it is manslaughter and when it is murder.” *Cargile*v. *State,*137 *Ga. 775*(74 S. E. 621); *Freeman*v. *State,*70 *Ga.*376 (3).

4. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justiees concur.*
### §3940. Reservation of right to repeal, alter, or amend chapter

The right to repeal, alter, or amend this chapter at any time is expressly reserved.

(Pub. L. 90–448, title IX, §910, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 550.)
#### (A) The People op the State of New York ex rel. Carl Edelson, Appellant, v. Robert B. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent. (B) The People of the State of New York ex rel. Albert Marr, Appellant, v. Robert B. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent. (C) The People of the State of New York ex rel. Wallace B. Roebuck, Appellant, v. Robert B. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

[In each proceeding] Motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 30, 2020

No. 04-20-00352-CR

William Roy TATE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-0335-CR-B

Honorable William D. Old III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The State’s brief was due by December 28, 2020. On that day, the State filed a motion 

requesting a twenty day extension of time. After consideration, we GRANT the motion and 

ORDER the State to file its brief by January 18, 2021.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of December, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
§ 51.203 Safety standards. The following standards shall be used in determining the acceptable separation distance of a proposed HUD-assisted project from a hazard: ( a ) *Thermal Radiation Safety Standard.* Projects shall be located so that: ( 1 ) The allowable thermal radiation flux level at the building shall not exceed 10,000 BTU/sq. ft. per hr.;
( 2 ) The allowable thermal radiation flux level for outdoor, unprotected facilities or areas of congregation shall not exceed 450 BTU/sq. ft. per hour.
( b ) *Blast Overpressure Safety Standard.* Projects shall be located so that the maximum allowable blast overpressure at both buildings and outdoor, unprotected facilities or areas shall not exceed 0.5 psi.
( c ) If a hazardous substance constitutes both a thermal radiation and blast overpressure hazard, the ASD for each hazard shall be calculated, and the larger of the two ASDs shall be used to determine compliance with this subpart.
( d ) Background information on the standards and the logarithmic thermal radiation and blast overpressure charts that provide assistance in determining acceptable separation distances are contained in appendix II to this subpart C.
[49 FR 5103, Feb. 10, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 13334, Mar. 26, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.232 Penalties for failing to sign consent forms. ( a ) *Denial or termination of benefits.* In accordance with the provisions governing the program involved, if the assistance applicant or participant, or any member of the assistance applicant's or participant's family, does not sign and submit the consent form as required in § 5.230, then: ( 1 ) The processing entity shall deny assistance to and admission of an assistance applicant;
( 2 ) Assistance to, and the tenancy of, a participant may be terminated.
( b ) *Cross references.* Individuals should consult the regulations and administrative instructions for the programs covered under this subpart B for further information on the use of income information in determinations regarding eligibility.
( c ) This section does not apply if the applicant or participant, or any member of the assistance applicant's or participant's family revokes his/her consent with respect to the ability of the PHA to access financial records from financial institutions, unless the PHA establishes an admission and occupancy policy that revocation of consent to access financial records will result in denial or termination of assistance or admission.
[61 FR 11113, Mar. 18, 1996, as amended at 88 FR 9655, Feb. 14, 2023]
#### Michael Pruzan et al. v. Board of Education of the City of New York.

Motion for a preference granted to the extent of adding the above-entitled appeal to the Enumerated Calendar of this court for February 16, 1961 on condition that the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before 12. o’clock noon on February 7, 1961. The respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before 4:00 p.m. on February 14, 1961. That branch of the motion requesting leave to dispense with printing in the record on appeal of Legislative Document No. 32, Report of the New York State Joint Legislative Committee on Industrial and Labor Relations is granted on condition that a. copy thereof is handed up to the court on the argument or submission of the appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I,  Nazzareno E. Paciotti,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial
Officer  of GVI  Security  Solutions,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  hereby  certify,
pursuant  to  18   U.S.C.ss.1350   adopted   pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (i) The  Company's  accompanying  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the
      three months ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the  requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (ii) The  information  contained in such report  fairly  presents,  in all
      material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

/s/ Nazzareno E. Paciotti
------------------------------------
Nazzareno E. Paciotti
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  May 24, 2004
### §3605. Program to encourage innovative solutions to enhance electronic Government services and processes

(a) Establishment of Program.—The Administrator shall establish and promote a Governmentwide program to encourage contractor innovation and excellence in facilitating the development and enhancement of electronic Government services and processes.

(b) Issuance of Announcements Seeking Innovative Solutions.—Under the program, the Administrator, in consultation with the Council and the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, shall issue announcements seeking unique and innovative solutions to facilitate the development and enhancement of electronic Government services and processes.

(c) Multiagency Technical Assistance Team.—(1) The Administrator, in consultation with the Council and the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, shall convene a multiagency technical assistance team to assist in screening proposals submitted to the Administrator to provide unique and innovative solutions to facilitate the development and enhancement of electronic Government services and processes. The team shall be composed of employees of the agencies represented on the Council who have expertise in scientific and technical disciplines that would facilitate the assessment of the feasibility of the proposals.

(2) The technical assistance team shall—

(A) assess the feasibility, scientific and technical merits, and estimated cost of each proposal; and

(B) submit each proposal, and the assessment of the proposal, to the Administrator.

(3) The technical assistance team shall not consider or evaluate proposals submitted in response to a solicitation for offers for a pending procurement or for a specific agency requirement.

(4) After receiving proposals and assessments from the technical assistance team, the Administrator shall consider recommending appropriate proposals for funding under the E-Government Fund established under section 3604 or, if appropriate, forward the proposal and the assessment of it to the executive agency whose mission most coincides with the subject matter of the proposal.

(Added Pub. L. 107–347, title I, §101(a), Dec. 17, 2002, 116 Stat. 2909.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 120 days after Dec. 17, 2002, see section 402(a) of Pub. L. 107–347, set out as a note under section 3601 of this title.
#### § 3.130 Effect of employment opportunities.

The obligation to comply with these Title IX regulations is not obviated or alleviated because employment opportunities in any occupation or profession are or may be more limited for members of one sex than for members of the other sex.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE VINCENT BRYANT,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT K. WONG, Warden, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 09-2570 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On June 9, 2009, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2008 decision by the California Board of Prison

Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition

and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions. See Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:09-cv-02570-MMC Document 5 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02570-MMC Document 5 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 242.76 Title evidence. Upon insurance of the mortgage, the mortgagee shall furnish to HUD a survey of the mortgage property, satisfactory to HUD, and a policy of title insurance covering the property, as provided in paragraph (a) of this section. If, for reasons HUD considers to be satisfactory, title insurance cannot be furnished, the mortgagee shall furnish such evidence of title in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section as HUD may require. Any survey, policy of title insurance, or evidence of title required under this section shall be furnished without expense to HUD. The types of title evidence are: ( a ) A policy of title insurance issued by a company and in a form satisfactory to HUD. The policy shall name as the insureds the mortgagee and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and their successors and assigns, as their respective interests may appear. The policy shall provide that upon acquisition of title by the mortgagee or the Secretary, it will continue to provide the same coverage as the original policy, and will run to the mortgagee or the Secretary, as the case may be.
( b ) An abstract of title satisfactory to HUD, prepared by an abstract company or individual engaged in the business of preparing abstracts of title, accompanied by a legal opinion satisfactory to HUD as to the quality of such title, signed by an attorney-at-law experienced in the examination of titles.
( c ) A Torrens or similar title certificate.
Editorial Note on Part 42
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 42 appear at 71 FR 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 42.72 Validity of visas. ( a ) *Period of validity.* With the exception indicated herein, the period of validity of an immigrant visa shall not exceed six months, beginning with the date of issuance. Any visa issued to a child lawfully adopted by a U.S. citizen and spouse while such citizen is serving abroad in the U.S. Armed Forces, is employed abroad by the U.S. Government, or is temporarily abroad on business, however, shall be valid until such time, for a period not to exceed 3 years, as the adoptive citizen parent returns to the United States in the course of that parent's military service, U.S. Government employment, or business.
( b ) *Extension of period of validity.* If the visa was originally issued for a period of validity less than the maximum authorized by paragraph (a) of this section, the consular officer may extend the validity of the visa up to but not exceeding the maximum period permitted. If an immigrant applies for an extension at a consular office other than the issuing office, the consular officer shall, unless the officer is satisfied beyond doubt that the alien is eligible for the extension, communicate with the issuing office to determine if there is any objection to an extension. In extending the period of validity, the officer shall make an appropriate notation on the visa of the new expiration date, sign the document with title indicated, and impress the seal of the office thereon.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Age and marital status in relation to validity of certain immigrant visas.* In accordance with § 42.64(b), the validity of a visa may not extend beyond a date sixty days prior to the expiration of the passport. The period of validity of a visa issued to an immigrant as a child shall not extend beyond the day immediately proceding the date on which the alien becomes 21 years of age. The consular officer shall warn an alien, when appropriate, that the alien will be admissible as such an immigrant only if unmarried and under 21 years of age at the time of application for admission at a U.S. port of entry. The consular officer shall also warn an alien issued a visa as a first or second preference immigrant as an unmarried son or daughter of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States that the alien will be admissible as such an immigrant only if unmarried at the time of application for admission at a U.S. port of entry.
[52 FR 42613, Nov. 5, 1987, as amended at 56 FR 32323, July 16, 1991; 61 FR 1836, Jan. 24, 1996; 62 FR 27694, May 21, 1997; 64 FR 28916, May 28, 1999; 67 FR 38894, June 6, 2002; 68 FR 13628, Mar. 20, 2003]
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





In
connection with the Annual Report of Atlas America Public #14-2004 L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the MGP, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            March
      30, 2009
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM NO. 2023 CW 0728 VERSUS TOWN OF SPRINGFIELDAND TOMMY ABELS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR FOR THE TOWN OF SPRINGFIELD 

### SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

In Re: Town of Springfield and Mayor Tommy Abels, applying

for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 730012. BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. JMG WIL Chutz, J., dissents. I would grant the writ and instruct the district court to transfer the Livingston Parish per La. Code Civ. P. art. 121.

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT application matter to
#### PHG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMEMED LABELING SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and Laserband, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, and Holden Graphics Services, Defendant.

Nos. 2007-1042, 2007-1043.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 10, 2007.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motions to voluntarily dismiss these appeals,

*898IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motions are granted.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 063

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and t hen out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Replacement 12.0 $ 1,020.0

0 $13,468 $ 14,488.00 126 $ 1,825,488.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of pr oducts in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 1,825,488



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field c an also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibil ity Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to i nclude specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### § 35.106 Information collection requirements.

The information collection requirements contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 2501-3520), and have been assigned OMB control number 2539-0009. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid control number.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. GARY LEE SMITH, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 761 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 12th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.