alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Goldtech Mining Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Jinqing Dong, Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.

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

Date:  November 21, 2005                                 By: /s/ JINQING DONG
                                                         --------------------
                                                         Jinqing Dong
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
|                                            |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                            |  |  |  |  |
| Name of the company                   |   | Jurisdiction ofincorporation  |   | Principal activities |
| North Atlantic Alpha Ltd.                  |   | Bermuda |   | SPV, rig owning company |
| North Atlantic Elara Ltd.                  |   | Bermuda |   | SPV, rig owning company |
| North Atlantic Epsilon Ltd.                |   | Bermuda |   | SPV, rig owning company |
| North Atlantic Navigator Ltd.              |   | Bermuda |   | SPV, rig owning company |
| North Atlantic Phoenix Ltd.                |   | Bermuda |   | SPV, rig owning company |
| North Atlantic Venture Ltd.                |   | Bermuda |   | SPV, rig owning company |
| North Atlantic Linus Ltd                   |   | Bermuda |   | SPV, rig owning company |
| North Atlantic Rigel Ltd                   |   | Bermuda |   | SPV, rig owning company |
| North Atlantic Norway Ltd.                 |   | Bermuda |   | Drilling services contractor |
| North Atlantic Crewing Ltd                 |   | Bermuda |   | Vessel Management company |
| North Atlantic Linus Charterer Ltd         |   | Bermuda |   | Drilling services contractor |
| North Atlantic Drilling UK Ltd.            |   | UK |   | Drilling services contractor |
| North Atlantic Support Services Ltd        |   | UK |   | Management company |
| North Atlantic Management AS               |   | Norway |   | Management company |
| North Atlantic Crew AS                     |   | Norway |   | Vessel Management company |
| North Atlantic Management International AS |   | Norway |   | Management company |
| Seadrill Offshore AS                       |   | Norway |   | Drilling services contractor |
| Eastern Drilling AS                        |   | Norway |   | Management company |
| Seadrill Americas Inc.                     |   | USA |   | Drilling Services Contractor |
| Seadrill Servicos de Petrolea (SA)         |   | Brazil |   | Services contractor |
| North Atlantic Management LLC              |   | Russia |   | Drilling Services Contractor |
| Seadrill Norge Holding AS                  |   | Spitzbergen |   | Dormant |
| Seadrill Norge AS                          |   | Spitzbergen |   | Dormant |
| SFL West Linus Ltd*                        |   | Bermuda |   | Owner of West Linus |
fac-ex101_7.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

 

Compensation of Kenneth D. Russell

 


	
Annual Base Salary:
	
$430,000, subject to increase at the discretion of the Compensation Committee.

	
 
	
 

	
Bonus:
	
Mr. Russell is entitled to participate in the Senior Management Bonus Program.
Exhibit No. 12.

Questar Pipeline Company
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Year ended March 31,
                                                    1998        1999
                                                (Dollars in Thousands)
<S>                                             <C>         <C>
Earnings

Income before income taxes                          $39,920     $40,614
Plus debt expense                                    19,903      19,771
Plus allowance for borrowed
   funds used during construction                       226       1,326
Plus interest portion of rental expense                  263        377
                                                    $60,312     $62,088

Fixed Charges

Debt expense                                        $19,903     $19,771
Plus allowance for borrowed
   funds used during construction                       226       1,326
Plus interest portion of rental expense                 263         377
                                                    $20,392     $21,474

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                     2.96        2.89
</TABLE>
#### Maxcie D. Little, Petitioner, v. New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul respondent’s determination dated July 29, 1968 which dismissed petitioner from his position of Railroad Clerk in respondent’s employ. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs. Following an investigation by several Transit Authority inspectors, petitioner was charged with collecting 20-cent cash fares on five separate dates, from January 3, 1968 to February 13, 1968, both inclusive, and, instead of tendering subway tokens therefor, motioning the intended passenger through the exit gate in lieu of permitting him to use the turnstile. After a hearing petitioner was found guilty as to three of the specified instances of theft and the charge was sustained. The court is unanimous that the evidence was sufficient to sustain that finding and disagrees only with respect to the question whether the punishment was excessive. It is the *999view of the majority that it was not. We are authorized to set aside a determination by an administrative agency “only if the measure of punishment or discipline imposed is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” *(Matter of Stole*v. *Board of*Regents, 4 A D 2d 361, 364). By that test we are of the opinion that the determination of the Authority may not be disturbed. The three proven thefts occurred over a period of weeks, so that, although only 60 cents was involved, what was disclosed was a pattern of dishonest conduct. There must be the severest kind of penalty for such misfeasance to insure honesty in those who handle money where there is no other check than the integrity of the employee. Christ, P. J., Rabin and Munder, JJ., concur; Hopkins and Brennan, JJ., dissent and vote to modify the determination so as to reduce the penalty to a suspension without pay for six months, with the following memorandum: Although we strongly disapprove of the theft of 60 cents by petitioner, in our opinion the punishment of dismissal after 26 years of service with an otherwise fair record amounted to unduly harsh discipline and an abuse of the Authority’s discretion (CPLR 7803, subd. 3). We believe justice will be served no less, and perhaps more, with a reduction of the penalty to a six months’ suspension without pay (cf. *Matter of Mitthauer*v. Patterson, 8 N Y 2d 37).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. ) CR. NO. 3:06-cr-208-MEF

)

JASON EDWARD COFIELD )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the government's motion for release of prisoner filed on

September 12, 2006, and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the motion be and hereby is

GRANTED.

It is hereby ORDERED that the United States Marshals Service release custody of

Jason Edward Cofield, to Keith Jordan, Lee County Sheriff’s Office, and/or Donnie Surrett,

Lee County Sheriff’s Office, and/or Tim Fitzpatrick, ATF, on September 13, 2006, through

December 13, 2006, so that said agents can take such prisoner into custody without the

necessity of the presence of a Deputy United States Marshal.

It is further ORDERED that Keith Jordan, Lee County Sheriff’s Office, and/or Donnie

Surrett, Lee County Sheriff’s Office, and/or Tim Fitzpatrick, ATF, return said prisoner into

the custody of the United States Marshals Service when they have finished with him.

Done this 12 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00208-MEF-CSC Document 18 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Maxwell Hawthorne, Appellant, v Robert McGuire, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 26, 1979, which granted respondents’ motion to change the venue of the proceeding from Kings County to New York County. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an intermediate order in a proceeding against a body or officer *872pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the absence of permission (see CPLR 5701, subd [b], par 1). If we were not dismissing, we would affirm. The transfer was neither contrary to law nor an abuse of discretion (cf. *Sassower v Finnerty,*68 AD2d 936). Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
§ 981.18 Settlement weight. *Settlement weight* means the actual gross weight of any lot of almonds received for his own account by any handler, less adjustments as follows: ( a ) For weight of containers,
( b ) For excess moisture,
( c ) For trash or other foreign material of any kind, and
( d ) For inedible kernels as defined in § 981.8.
[35 FR 11372, July 16, 1970, as amended at 61 FR 32920, June 26, 1996]
# FILED October 14, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE THOMAS MILO LOGAN, ) ) Plaintiff/Appella

nt, ) Coffee Chancery

) No. 2687 VS. ) ) Appeal No. MARY JANE LOGAN, ) 01A01-9711-CH-00660 ) Defendant/Appellee. ) CONCURRING OP

INION I concur with

the court’s opinion because Mr. Logan has not established the existence of materially

changed circ

umstances that wa

rrant a reducti

on in his spousal supp

ort obligations.

_______________________________ WILLIA M C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDDIE HAIGLER, a/k/a Ram,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-186-5, CA-95-2208-5-6)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 1, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Haigler, Appellant Pro Se. Cameron Glenn Chandler, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment and denying his motion filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Haigler, Nos. CR-89-186-5; CA-95-2208-5-6 (D.S.C. Nov.

24, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S.

June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DERON L. BARNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv725-MHT

)

REGIONS BANK, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This case is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. The court wishes the plaintiff to fully understand the limited nature of being

allowed to proceed in forma pauperis which only permits the plaintiff to commence this suit

without prepayment of fees and court costs. The plaintiff should understand he may incur

expenses as a result of the prosecution of this case. In the event of a trial, the plaintiff may

compel the attendance of witnesses through subpoena only by tendering to each witness

payment of a one-day witness fee of $40, plus mileage. Also, court costs, which vary, but

which can be very substantial, are normally assessed against the losing party. This means

that a plaintiff who loses a case, even though proceeding in forma pauperis, may be charged

with, and obligated to pay, all court costs.

Now, having advised the plaintiff of the possible expense of litigation, it is

ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be and is hereby

GRANTED.

Done this 17th day of August, 2006.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 4 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 986.37 Shelled pecans.

*Shelled pecans* are pecans whose shells have been removed leaving only edible kernels, kernel pieces or pecan meal. *Shelled pecans* are synonymous with *pecan meats.*
Subpart 1904.70 - Procurement Requests    **Parent topic:** PART 1904 - ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS1904.7001 General.       (a) Procurement requests will be prepared and submitted to the contracting office in accordance with Board procedures.          (b) Except in unusual circumstances, the contracting office will not issue solicitations until an approved procurement request, containing a certification that funds are available, has been received. However, the contracting office may take all necessary actions up to the point of contract award prior to the receipt of the approved procurement request certifying that funds are available when:          (1) Such action is necessary to meet critical program schedules;          (2) It has been established that program authority has been issued and that funds to cover the acquisition will be available prior to the date set for contract award or contract modification;          (3) A person at a level above the contracting officer authorizes such action prior to the issuance of the solicitation, and the contract file is properly documented; and          (4) The solicitation document clearly indicates that the award is subject to the availability of funds.          (c) The procurement request shall be assigned within the contracting office to an individual who, if not the contracting officer, will be responsible to the contracting officer for conducting the business aspects of the transaction. This individual shall review the request to ensure that it complies with the FAR and this Regulation and that the information contained in the request is in sufficient detail to prepare presolicitation and solicitation documents. The contracting officer, or other designated individual in the contracting office, shall discuss uncertain requirements or inconsistencies in the procurement request with the initiator of the request and obtain clarification prior to taking any further action.
Subpart 3031.2—Contracts with Commercial

Organizations

Parent topic: PART 3031—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

3031.205 Selected costs.

3031.205-32 Precontract costs.

(a) The decision to incur precontract costs is that of the contractor. DHS employees may not

authorize, demand, or require a contractor to incur precontract costs. The contracting officer must

advise the prospective contractor that any costs incurred before contract award are incurred at the

contractor's sole risk and that if negotiations fail to result in a binding contract, payment of these

costs will not be made by the Government. See (HSAR) 48 CFR 3031.205–32(b) regarding exception

due to reconciliation of costs.

(b) When the contracting officer determines that incurring precontract costs was necessary to meet

the proposed contract delivery schedule of a cost-reimbursement contract, the clause at (HSAR) 48

CFR 3052.231–70, Precontract Costs, may be inserted in the resultant contract.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) CR. NO. 2:06mj79-SRW

) WO

HARRY EDWARD JONES, III, )

ORDER

Based on the evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing on August 15, 2006, the

Magistrate Judge concludes that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant

committed the offense charged in the complaint. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that the defendant is bound over to the district court for further

proceedings. 

Further, in accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a detention

hearing was held on August 15, 20006. As there is probable cause to believe that defendant

committed a 10+ year drug offense, there is a rebuttable presumption of detention in this

case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). I find that the credible testimony and information

submitted at the hearing establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant

participated in a conspiracy involving three kilograms of cocaine that were transported from

San Antonio for delivery to defendant Jones and his co-defendant, Santo Coleman, in

Montgomery. During an attempted controlled delivery of the cocaine by another codefendant and law enforcement, Jones fled from the scene in a truck driven by Coleman

when agents tried to arrest him. The truck drove over the grass, traveled down several roads,

and finally crashed through a fence and wrecked into a tree. Approximately one and one-half

Case 2:06-mj-00079-SRW Document 18 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 1 of 2
hours later, defendant was located by a canine officer in or next to storage shed near the site

of the wreck. He had some $5100 in his possession and a small amount of marijuana. After

he was in custody, defendant gave a false address to the pretrial services officer. 

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that there are no conditions or

combination of conditions which will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and

that the defendant should be detained. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General

or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private

consultation with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of

an attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver

the defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding.

DONE, this 16th day of August, 2006.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-mj-00079-SRW Document 18 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 2 of 2
313.301 Government-wide commercial purchase card.       (b) Make all HHS transactions utilizing the government-wide commercial purchase card in accordance with the HHS Purchase Card Program.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 313.3 - Simplified Acquisition Methods
#### SOLOMONS, Appellant, v. BOYER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Action by Joseph R. Solomons against Frank W. Boyer.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court unanimously affirmed, with costs.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, McCullough and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

DANIEL MARTINEZ 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1927-13-4 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 28, 2014 

ZAMUDIO TREE & LANDSCAPING AND 

 THE UNINSURED EMPLOYER’S FUND 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Gregory J. Park; Park & Park, P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 (Dana L. Plunkett; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for 

appellee The Uninsured Employer’s Fund. 

 No brief for appellee Zamudio Tree & Landscaping. 

 Daniel Martinez appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission denying 

his claim for temporary total disability benefits. On appeal, he claims the commission erred in 

concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish an average weekly wage upon which 

temporary total disability benefits could be awarded. We have reviewed the record and the 

commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Martinez v. Zamudio Tree & 

Landscaping, JCN VA02000006921 (Sept. 11, 2013). We dispense with oral argument and 

summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

UNPUBLISHED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00366-CV

IN RE Gabriel ESTRADA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 10, 2022

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On June 21, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Mandamus is an

extraordinary remedy, available only when the relator can show (1) the trial court clearly abused

its discretion or violated a duty imposed by law; and (2) there is no adequate remedy by way of

appeal. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). As the

Texas Supreme Court recently recognized, mandamus is not meant for grievances that may be

addressed by other remedies. See Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation

Infrastructure Fund, LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 641 (Tex. 2021). This court has reviewed orders

granting pleas to the jurisdiction under Texas Family Code section 102.003(a)(9) on direct appeal.

See, e.g., In re Guardianship of C.E.M.-K., 341 S.W.3d 68, 78 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011,

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2007-CI-07900, styled In the Interest of J.N.M., a Child, pending in the 

288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa presiding.
04-22-00366-CV

- 2 -

pet.) (concluding former step-father had standing to file SAPCR); see also Y.B., 300 S.W.3d 1, 3

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. denied). However, because relator has not shown he has no

adequate remedy by direct appeal, we conclude relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

2 On June 24, 2022, this court issued an order denying relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.