alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MUHAMMAD AL-AMEEN, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-699-WHA

)

NURSE SPEIGNER, )

)

 Defendant. )

ORDER

On December 15, 2006, this court entered an order, a copy of which the Clerk

mailed to the plaintiff. The postal service returned this order because the plaintiff was no

longer at the address he had provided for service. In the order of procedure entered in this

case, the court instructed the plaintiff that he must immediately inform the court of any new

address. See Order of August 14, 2006 - Court Document No. 4 at 5. It is clear from the

foregoing that the plaintiff has failed to comply with this requirement. This case cannot

properly proceed in this court if the whereabouts of the plaintiff remain unknown.

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that:

1. On or before January 18, 2007, the plaintiff shall show cause why this case

should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the orders of this court and his

failure to adequately prosecute this action. 

 2. The defendant shall file no response to the complaint unless and until further

Case 1:06-cv-00699-WHA-CSC Document 11 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

order of this court. 

3. The motion for extension of time filed by the defendant on December 27, 2006

(Court Doc. No. 10 at 2 ¶ 7) be and is hereby DENIED as moot.

The plaintiff is specifically cautioned that if he fails to respond to this order the

Magistrate Judge will recommend that this case be dismissed.

Done this 8th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00699-WHA-CSC Document 11 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
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 of Centenary International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carlos Fabian De Sousa, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



| | (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/ Carlos Fabian De Sousa

Carlos Fabian De Sousa

Chief Financial Officer

August 20, 2012



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. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the
Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and are not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
(86 Misc. Rep. 365)

#### In re HOFFMAN’S WILL.

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County.

June, 1914.)

Wills (§ 303*)—Evidence—Weight and Sufficiency—Testimony of Attesting Witnesses—Impeachment.

Declarations of an attesting witness to a will, contrary to his certificate of attestation and his sworn testimony, are not strong evidence, as countervailing the certificate and sworn testimony; and when such admissions are testified to only by a contestant, they are of trifling weight.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 711-723; Dec. Dig. § 303.*]

*358Application for the probate of the will of Edward Otto Hoffman, the probate being contested. Decree for probate.

Millard & Thornton, of Tarrytown (Hugh A. Thornton, of Tarrytown, of counsel), for proponent.

Thomas G. Prioleau, of New York City, for contestant.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

FOWLER, S.

The contestants of the probate deny that the paper offered was subscribed by the testator. In other words, they-assert that the subscription is not genuine. But the attesting witnesses are very positive, and I can detect no motive on their part to fabricate evidence.

It is attempted to impeach one of the attesting witnesses by declarations contrary to his certificate of attestation and his sworn testimony. Such admissions are not strong evidence to countervail a certificate of attestation or sworn testimony, and when such admissions are testified to only by a contestant, they are of trifling weight. Matter of Klinzner, 71 Misc. Rep. 635, 636, 130 N. Y. Supp. 1059. Whether declarations of even a deceased attesting witness, contrary to his attestation, are ever competent has been much doubted. In England the rule is settled that they are not competent. Stobart v. Dryden, 5 L. J. Ex. 218, 1 M. & W. 615. Doe v. Ridgway, 4 Barn. & Ald. 52, cited in Matter of Hesdra, 119 N. Y. 615, 23 N. E. 555, to the contrary is not the law of England as assumed in Matter of Hesdra. In Matter of Will of Johnson, *7*Misc. Rep. 220, *27*N. Y. Supp. 649, the declarations of the attesting witness I notice were received, but ignored in the conclusion. The point of evidence was not much discussed.

It seems to me that the ruling in Matter of Hesdra should be connned to the particular facts of that case and never be extended. Assuming that the testator’s subscription is genuine in this proceeding, the proof of execution is amply sufficient to entitle the paper propounded to probate. Now, is the subscription genuine? I am satisfied from the evidence that it is, and that the paper was subscribed by the testator in person. The expert called for the contestant gave opinion evidence that the subscription to the paper propounded was not that of testator; but I was not impressed by his testimony, and I prefer to credit that of the attesting witnesses, which is very positive on this point.

The decree will be for probate.
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128445 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. DANIEL BARRY COUCH, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 128445 COA: 256899 Oakland CC: 2003-047997-NM RAYMOND A. CORRELL, and RAYMOND A. CORRELL, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 1,

2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0919 I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 28, 2005

Clerk
|Exhibit 31.2                            
|----------------------------------------
|HAMPDEN BANCORP, INC.                   
|CERTIFICATION                           
|Pursuant to Rule 13a - 14(a) / 15d-14(a)
|                                        
|I, Robert A. Massey, certify that:      
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|Date: September 11, 2007                
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 8 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 8 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### COLES v. INTERNATIONAL BANK NOTE CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 14, 1906.)

Principal and Agent—Authority or Agent—Evidence.

Evidence in an action on a contract *held*sufficient to authorize a finding o£ authority of agent to make the contract

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Stephen E. Coles against the International Bank Note Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an .order denying a motion for new trial, defendant appeals.' Affirmed.

Argued before GIEDERSLEEVE, DUGRO, and DOWLING, JJ.

Pierce & Greer, for appellant.

John C. Coleman, for respondent.

GIEDERSLEEVE, J.

The action is to recover commission for procuring for the defendant a contract to engrave certain bonds. The contract was made, the work done, and it clearly appears from the evidence that the plaintiff was the procuring cause. The liability of the defendant rests upon the alleged promise by one Gilbert, the superintendent of defendant, that plaintiff should have 10 per cent, commission, and upon the authority of said Gilbert to bind the defendant.' The plaintiff testified that Gilbert took charge of defendant’s place and made its contracts. Gilbert, the only witness called by defendant, testified that he had no authority in the matter, but added that the president of the defendant company said he would-be willing to allow plaintiff a 10 per cent, commission after the money for the contract was received. *1061Plaintiff further testified that he saw in defendant’s office, upon a card index, a record of the contract for engraving and a note thereon as follows: “Ten per cent, commission to Coles.” This latter testimony was not denied. The learned trial judge submitted the disputed questions of fact to the jury, with proper instructions upon the law, and the jury found for the plaintiff. The judgment should not be disturbed, were it not for an obvious error in computing the amount due plaintiff for commission.

The judgment must be modified, by reducing the amount of the verdict to the sum of $525.39, and, as .modified, affirmed, without costs to either party. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3373 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3373

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Cloquintocet-mexyl.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 2006

 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Cloquintocet-mexyl.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLOQUINTOCET-MEXYL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.12.57       Acetic acid, 5-    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         chloro-8-                                                          31/2009
                         quinolinoxy-, 1-
                         methylhexyl ester
                         (Cloquintocet-
                         mexyl) (CAS No.
                         99607-70-2)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2933.49.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Attorney-General *v.*The North America Life Insurance Company.

(Argued June 3, 1884;

decided June 17, 1884.)

*William Baines*for appellant.

*S. W. Rosendale*for receiver, respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 097 -CR

Ro be r t W ill iam M oo r e , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR2006 -10 5 , HO NORAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Robert Will iam Moore timely filed a notice of appe al af ter the district court re voked his defer red a djudication community supervision, convicte d him of indece ncy wi t h a child, and imposed a 1 2
- y e ar s e n te n c e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a s c e rti f ie d th a t th is is a p le a - b ar g a in c ase a nd Moore has no rig ht of appea l. Ba sed on the district court’s c ertification, the State has filed a motion to d ism iss the a

pp e a l. I n a plea barg ain for de fer

red a djudication, the barg ain is complete whe n the defe ndant enter s his plea of guilty in exchang e for

defe rre d adjudi ca tion community supervision. Ha rg esh eim er v. S

tat e , 182 S.W .3d 906, 913 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Appellate r ule 25.2(a )(2) restric ts the defe ndant’s rig ht of appe al from the de fer re d ad j u d i cation orde r, but does not re strict th e d e f e n d an t’ s r ig h t o f

a p p e a l f o ll o w in g a

s u b s e qu e n t a d

ju d ic a ti o no f

g u ilt. Id .; Tex
. R. A

pp . P. 25 .2 (a )( 2) . T his is the c a se e ve n if the de fe nd ant ple a de d “tr ue ” to the a lle g a tio ns in t

he mot ion

to2

adjudicate in exchang e for an ag ree d punishment recommendation, because rule 25.2(a )(2) applies
on ly wh e n th e “ de fe nd ant’ s p le a is guil ty or no lo c on te nd e re .” Te x. R. A pp . P. 25 .2 (a )( 2) ; se e als o Gu tie rre z v . S tat e , 10 8 S.W. 3d 30 4, 30 9- 10 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03 ) (h old ing that pl ea barg a in
rec ommendation is not bindi ng on trial court at r evocation he aring ). After adjudication of guilt, the defe ndant’s appe al is restricte d only b y ar t i cle 42.12, se ction 5(b). Hargesheime r , 182 S.W .3d at 912; Tex. C ode Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 42.12, § 5(b) ( West S upp. 2006). We ca nnot determine f

rom the documents for

war ded to this Court with t he notice of appea l whether the plea ba

rg ain re fer ence d in the trial court’ s cer

tification was at the orig inal trial or at the a djudication hear ing, but, in either event, it does not re strict Moore’ s rig ht of appe al following adjudication.

The a ppeal is abate d. The dist rict court is instructed to prepa re and file an a

mended
c e rt if ic a tio n r e fl e c tin g that th is i s n ot a ple a -b arg a in c a se , an d the de fe nd ant ha s th e ri g ht o f a pp e a l. Hargesheime r , 182 S.W .3d at 913. A copy of t he amended certification shall be for war ded to the cler k of this Court no later than July 21, 2008.

____________________________________

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Abated Filed: Jul y

8, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Editorial Note on Part 869
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 869 appear at 84 FR 45646, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 869.107 Warehouse charges and tariffs. ( a ) A warehouse operator must not make any unreasonable or exorbitant charge for services rendered.
( b ) A warehouse operator must follow the terms and conditions for each new or revised warehouse tariff or schedule of charges and rates as prescribed in the applicable licensing agreement.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

JOHN STEPHEN COLEMAN, #223 809 *

Petitioner, *

v. * 2:06-CV-669-MEF

GWENDOLYN MOSLEY, WARDEN, et al., *

Respondents. *

 _______________________________

ORDER OR MOTION

Upon consideration of Petitioner’s motion for extension of time, and for good cause,

it is ORDERED that

1. Petitioner’s motion (Doc. No. 9) be and is hereby GRANTED;

2. Petitioner is GRANTED an extension from September 5, 2006 to September 15,

2006 to file a response to the court’s August 23, 2006 order. 

DONE, this 11th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00669-MEF-SRW Document 10 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 1
|   | (1) | The      Report, containing the financial statements, fully complies with the      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      MMPI. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      |   |                                                   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   |                                                   |   |
| Date:      March 13, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Richard      Meruelo                          |   |
|                      |   | Richard      Meruelo                                   |   |
|                      |   | Chief      Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board |   |
|                      |   |                                                   |   |
644.302 Requirements.

(a) The Procurement Executive is the head of the agency for the purpose of FAR 44.302(a).

Parent topic: Subpart 644.3—Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

January 18, 2013

s0115

Order 

January 18, 2013

146382

SC: 146382

In re M. T. TUCKER, Minor. COA: 308915

Washtenaw CC Family Division:

2009-000060-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 20, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

HATHAWAY, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 32.2  In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of China Shuangji Cement Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hongcheng Liu, in my capacities set forth below 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   May 12, 2009 /s/ Hongcheng Liu Hongcheng Liu, CFO (as Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 984.39 Qualify by acceptance.

Any person nominated to serve as a member or alternate member of the Board shall, prior to selection by USDA, qualify by filing a written qualification and acceptance statement indicating such person's willingness to serve in the position for which nominated.

[73 FR 11338, Mar. 3, 2008]
§ 763.15 Taxes and insurance. ( a ) The seller will ensure that taxes and insurance on the real estate are paid timely and will provide the evidence of payment to the escrow or servicing agent.
( b ) The seller will maintain flood insurance, if available, if buildings are located in a special 100-year floodplain as defined by FEMA flood hazard area maps.
( c ) The seller will report any insurance claim and use of proceeds to the escrow or servicing agent.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Canadian Solar Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bing
Zhu, Chief Financial 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: May 29, 2007

By:    /s/ Bing Zhu
    -----------------------------------
Name:  Bing Zhu
Title: Chief Financial Officer
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2746 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Phosphinic acid, 

diethyl-, aluminum salt along with synergists and encapsulating agents. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2006 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. CHAFEE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Phosphinic acid, 

diethyl-, aluminum salt along with synergists and encapsulating agents. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXOLIT OP 1312. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.09.03 Phosphinic acid, diethyl-, 

aluminum salt along with 

synergists and encapsulating 

agents (provided for in subheading 3824.90.91) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 

’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2746 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS