alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 7



Computation of Ratios for Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013



|                                                                      |  |  |  |           |   |  |           |   |  |           |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------- | - |  | --------- | - |  | --------- |  | 
|                                                                      |  |  |  | 2011      |   |  | 2012      |   |  | 2013      |  | 
|                                                                      |  |  |  | CNY000   |   |  | CNY000   |   |  | CNY000   |  | 
|Current assets (a)                                                    |  |  |  | 255,733   |   |  | 347,255   |   |  | 2,997,211 |  | 
|Current liabilities (b)                                               |  |  |  | 585,046   |   |  | 1,097,879 |   |  | 2,568,144 |  | 
|Current ratio (c=a/b)                                                 |  |  |  | 0.44      |   |  | 0.32      |   |  | 1.17      |  | 
|Working capital (d=a-b)                                               |  |  |  | (329,313  | ) |  | (750,624  | ) |  | 429,067   |  | 
|Short-term bank loans and current portion of long-term bank loans (e) |  |  |  | 225,000   |   |  | 443,900   |   |  |          |  | 
|Mining rights payable  current (f)                                   |  |  |  | 22,612    |   |  | 25,568    |   |  |          |  | 
|Long-term bank loans (g)                                              |  |  |  | 523,742   |   |  | 569,630   |   |  |          |  | 
|Mining rights payable  non-current (h)                               |  |  |  | 103,378   |   |  | 77,810    |   |  |          |  | 
|Total interest-bearing debt (i=e+f+g+h)                               |  |  |  | 874,732   |   |  | 1,116,908 |   |  |          |  | 
|Total shareholders equity (j)                                        |  |  |  | 625,893   |   |  | 546,875   |   |  | 255,518   |  | 
|Total capital (k=i+j)                                                 |  |  |  | 1,500,625 |   |  | 1,663,783 |   |  | 255,518   |  | 
|Ratio of interest-bearing debt to Total capital (l=i/k)               |  |  |  | 58.29%    |   |  | 67.13%    |   |  |          |  |
§ 1753.18 Engineer and architect contract closeout certifications. A certification of completion and inspection of construction signed by the borrower and countersigned in accordance with accepted professional engineering and architectural practice, by the engineer or architect, shall be prepared as evidence of completion of a major construction project. This certification shall make reference to the contract number and contract amount, and shall include the following: ( a ) A statement that the construction is complete and was done in accordance with the RUS approved system design or layout or subsequent RUS approved changes.
( b ) A statement that the construction was for loan purposes.
( c ) A statement that construction used was in accordance with specifications published by RUS covering the construction which were in effect when the contract was executed, or in the absence of such specifications, that it meets other applicable specifications and standards and that it meets all applicable national and local code requirements as to strength and safety.
( d ) A statement that the construction complies with the “Buy American” provision (7 U.S.C. 903 note) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.*).
( e ) A statement that all necessary approvals have been obtained from regulatory bodies and other entities with jurisdiction over the project.
( f ) A statement that all closeout documents required by this part have been examined and found complete such that the Contractor has fulfilled all obligations under the contract except for warranty coverage.
( g ) A statement that the engineer or architect is not affiliated with and does not represent the contractor, vendor, or manufacturer who is a participant in the contract.
[64 FR 16606, Apr. 6, 1999, as amended at 81 FR 71582, Oct. 18, 2016]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

          In connection with the amended quarterly report of Northern Ethanol, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A1 for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated: September 22, 2008 | s/Gordon Laschinger__________________ |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|

|   | Gordon Laschinger, Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.2





Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Maidenform Brands, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ended July 4, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher W.
Vieth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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/ Christopher W. ViethChristopher
      W. ViethExecutive
      Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer(principal
      financial officer)




August
12, 2009





This certification shall not be
deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, nor shall it be
deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.
Exhibit 13.1

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 China Natural Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Wong Wah On Edward, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Wong Wah On Edward

Wong Wah On Edward

Chief Executive Officer

June 19, 2017

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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
98-1402.

#### State v. Turner.

Summit App. No. 18618. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Electronic Docket Index for [EPA
- R09
- OAR
- 201 6
- 0 300 ] Completeness Findings for 110(a)(2)(C) State Implementation Plan Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) NAAQS; California; El Dorado County Air Quality Management District and Yolo
- Solano Air Quality Management District
I. SIP Submittal Documents
I

- A SIP submittal letter from CARB, dated March 21, 2016 I

- B Rule 523

- 1

– Federal Non

- Attainment New Source Review I

- C Submittal Completeness Letter, March 30, 2016

II. Federal Register Notice s 1
II

- A 71 FR 61144 , October 17 , 2006 II

- C 73 FR 28321 , May 16, 2008 II

- B 74 FR 58688, Nov ember 13, 2009 II

- D 79 FR 31566 , June 2, 2014

III. EPA Rulemaking Documents
III

- A Federal Register Notice

1 All Federal Register notices listed after 1993 are available on

- line at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR
68056834.v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS Case No. 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC

EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY

LITIGATION Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon

This Document Relates to All Cases

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL AND REMOVAL FROM SERVICE LIST

Please take notice that Derek Rajavuori hereby withdraws as counsel of record for 

Defendant 3M Company. Butler Snow LLP will remain as attorney for Defendant 3M Company.

Accordingly, the undersigned requests that the clerk remove Derek Rajavuori as counsel of 

record for Defendant 3M Company.

Respectfully submitted this the 2nd day of March 2023.

/s/Derek S. Rajavuori

Derek S. Rajavuori

Georgia Bar No. 577647

BUTLER SNOW LLP

1170 Peachtree Street NE

Suite 1900

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(678) 515-5064 Telephone

(678) 515-5001 Facsimile

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3689 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 2
2

68056834.v1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 2, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

Court using the electronic case filing system of the Court, which will send notification of filing to 

counsel of record.

/s/ Derek S. Rajavuori

Derek S. Rajavuori

Georgia Bar No. 577647

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3689 Filed 03/02/23 Page 2 of 2
Third District.

#### Dick & Brothers Quincy Brewing Company, appellee, v. City of Quincy, appellant.

Gen. No. 8,174.

Opinion filed January 25, 1928.

Rehearing denied April 12, 1928.

William Sehlagenhauf, for appellants. Rolla Babcock, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

Henry Giovani Perez-Escobar,

 Petitioner,

 v.

Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney

General,

 Respondent.

No. 21-713

Agency No. A205-312-939

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Henry Giovani Perez-Escobar, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision

denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a). We review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not 

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAR 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We review the agency’s factual findings for 

substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039, 1048 (9th Cir.

2010). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those

necessary to decide the petition.

As to withholding of removal, Perez-Escobar asserts that he was targeted

based on a particular social group defined by resisting recruitment by gangs. 

But this court has made clear that general “resistance” to gang recruitment,

alone, is not a protected ground. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855 (9th

Cir. 2009) (holding that “young men in Guatemala who resist gang recruitment”

was not a cognizable social group), abrogated in part on other grounds by

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092–93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc)

(distinguishing the social visibility of those who testify against gang members 

in open court). The BIA correctly determined that Perez-Escobar’s proposed 

social group was not cognizable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

The BIA concluded that Perez-Escobar was ineligible for CAT relief

because he did not show he is more likely than not to be tortured if returned to

Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). It reached that conclusion because the

past violence Perez-Escobar experienced—a single fight in which he received a

two-inch stab wound on his arm—did not amount to torture and because PerezEscobar was able to safely relocate within Guatemala for several months after

the fight. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 3) is denied.
3

PETITION DENIED.
#### § 201.19 Inert matter.

The label shall show the percentage by weight of inert matter.

[5 FR 31, Jan. 4, 1940]
#### § 1782.5 Nondiscrimination.

Each instrument of conveyance required for a transfer, assumption, sale of facility, or other servicing action under this subpart will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-318), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-112), and other Federal statutes and regulations issued pursuant thereto that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, handicap, religion, age, or sex in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Such provisions apply for as long as the property continues to be used for the same or similar purposes for which the Federal assistance was extended, or for so long as the purchaser owns it, whichever is later.
#### Robert Michaels, Respondent, v Thomas C. Hartzell et al., Appellants. Thomas C. Hartzell et al., Appellants, v Robert Michaels, Respondent.

— Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiff Michaels’ first cause of action dismissed, and matter remitted in accordance with the following memorandum: In plaintiff-respondent’s action to compel specific performance of an option to purchase premises owned by defendants as tenants by the entirety and occupied by plaintiff-respondent under a long-term lease signed only by defendant Thomas C. Hartzell, the court adopted the findings of the advisory jury that the handwritten option to purchase clause was in the margin of Page No. 3 of the lease amendment when defendant Thomas C. Hartzell initialed that page. The evidence supports such finding and we affirm it. We find no error in the court’s ruling limiting *1057the scope of cross-examination of defendant’s former secretary on collateral issues. (See *Radosh v Shipstad, 20*NY2d 504, 508.) The court erred, however, in granting specific performance against the defendant Alice M. Hartzell as a tenant by the entirety because she neither signed the option nor authorized her husband in writing to do so on her behalf (General Obligations Law, § 5-703, subd 2). There is no evidence of any participation by defendant Alice M. Hartzell in transactions or negotiations pertaining to the property. She never met with plaintiff or his brother and concededly made no representation nor performed any act upon which plaintiff relied. Nor does it appear that she knew of the repairs and improvements to the property made by plaintiff. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that there was "both an occasion and a duty to speak,” or that "the omission to speak, upon opportunity being presented, was intentional or in negligent disregard of the plain dictates of conscience and justice.” *(Thompson v Simpson,*128 NY 270, 291; see *Rothschild v Title Guar. & Trust Co.,*204 NY 458, 461-462; *Mazzochetti*v *Cassarino,*49 AD2d 695; *Coppola v Fredstrom,*45 AD2d 857.) The active participation in the transaction by the party to be estopped, present in *Farr v Newman*(18 AD2d 54, 56-58) and relied upon by plaintiff-respondent is lacking. The judgment is therefore reversed insofar as it grants specific performance against the defendants as tenants by the entirety and plaintiff Michaels’ first cause of action is dismissed. Inasmuch as there was no determination made with respect to plaintiff Michaels’ second, third and fourth causes and the Hartzells’ cross action, we remit the matter for such further proceedings as may be appropriate. All concur, Schnepp, J., not participating, except Callahan, J., who dissents and votes to affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in the decision at Trial Term, Patlow, J. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—specific performance.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
#### Pryor *vs.*The Commonwealth.

flíDÍCTMENT,

The term *money,*in the technical sense of judicial proceedings, means nothingbufgold and silver coin. Every penal of-fence must be proved as laid in the indictment. —A charge,that the def’t set up and kept a faro bank, at which mone?/was bet, lost and won, is not sustained by proof that *bank notes*were *hot,*lost and won.

: right of peptory chale, in penal s (not felo)extends to 0 jurors, as ises strictly . 3 *J.J,*

[Mr. Haggin, Mr. M. C. Johnson and Mr. Marshal] for the Plaintiff: *Alto, Gen.*Morehead for the Commonwealth.]

From the Circuit Court *for*Fayette County.

*October*24.

Judge Nicholas

delivered the Opinion of the Court

in which the Chief Justice, being absent at the hearing, took no part.

The indictment charges Pryor with setting up and keeping a gaming table, at which the game of chance called *Faro*was played for *money,*and at which *money*was won and lost. The proof was, that *bank notes*were played for, won and lost.

This court has *heretofore repeatedly determined7*that the term *money,*though it may have a popular import which, in ordinary parlance, means, or at least includes, hank notes ; yet, that its true technical import is lawful money of the United States, in other words, gold or silver coin, and when used in, judicial proceedings it is always to be taken in this technical sense. This has been so repeatedly decided, that the question ought long ago to have been, considered as at rest. Though the betting of bank notes is equally illegal, and-would render the defendant liable to the same penalty as *the*betting of money, yet as the proof must fit the charge as laid, the charge was not made *out*in ibis case, and the court ought so to iiave instructed the jury, at the instance of the defendant. If the charge had been for a betting, winning and losing of bank notes, it would have been no better sustained by proof of a betting, with gold and silver coin.

The court, also erred, in refusing the defendant the right of peremptory challenge to the extent of three jurors. It was held in the case of *Montee*vs. *the Commonwealth, 3 J. J. Marshall,*that the statute was susceptible of a construction, which would allow to the accused such right of peremptory challenge. We still think so.

*299That case has probably most generally regulated the practice on this subject ever sinpe. That would be a strong reason against retracting the opinion then intimated, even though we felt more doubt than we do of its correctness. The statute is, no doubt,' susceptible of a different construction, which would confine its provisions to civil cases. But as no reason of justice or policy can be surmised for allowing such right in a-merely civil'case, that does not equally require it in these penal proceedings, we cannot presume a legislative intention to make any such discrimination, and if there be an allowable construction, which will prevent it, such construction should be adopted by the court.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for? a new trial consistent herewith.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.528 Preapplication submission deadline.

Dates governing the review and selection of TSA grant preapplications will be published annually in the Federal Register. Preapplications received after that time will not be considered for funding. For use of fiscal year 1979 funds, the deadline for submission of preapplications will be 45 calendar days from date of publication of final regulations.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1956

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1956.55-1956.56 [Reserved]